| Literature DB >> 34217299 |
Chijioke Ifeanyi Okoli1,2, Mohammad Hajizadeh3, Mohammad Mafizur Rahman4, Rasheda Khanam4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although malaria in pregnancy is preventable with the use of intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP), it still causes maternal morbidity and mortality, in sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria in particular. Socioeconomic inequality leads to limited uptake of IPTp-SP by pregnant women and is, therefore, a public health challenge in Nigeria. This study aimed to measure and identify factors explaining socioeconomic inequality in the uptake of IPTp-SP in Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Concentration index; Decomposition analysis; Inequalities; Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy; Malaria; Nigeria; Socioeconomic
Year: 2021 PMID: 34217299 PMCID: PMC8254225 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-021-03834-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Descriptive statistics of variables used in the study
| Mean or percentage | |
|---|---|
| Variable | |
| Adequate uptake (≥ 3) of IPTp-SP during pregnancy | 27.3% |
| Demographic variables | |
| Woman’s age | 29.2 |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 66.5% |
| Others | 33.5% |
| Socioeconomic variables | |
| Woman education level | |
| No formal education | 34.6% |
| Primary education | 15.3% |
| Secondary education | 40.0% |
| Higher education | 10.4% |
| Spouse education level | |
| No formal education | 34.6% |
| Primary education | 15.6% |
| Secondary education | 34.1% |
| Higher education | 15.7% |
| Wealth index | |
| Poorest (1) | 18.6% |
| Poorer (2) | 20.0% |
| Middle (3) | 21.1% |
| Richer (4) | 21.1% |
| Richest (5) | 19.2% |
| Employment status | |
| Woman is employed | 64.6% |
| Religion | |
| Christian | 49.1% |
| Muslim | 50.0% |
| Others | 0.9% |
| Ecological variable | |
| Place of residence | |
| Urban residence | 40.6% |
| Geopolitical zone | |
| North-Central | 18.7% |
| North-East | 18.4% |
| North-West | 24.2% |
| South-East | 13.3% |
| South-South | 12.1% |
| South-West | 13.3% |
| Distance to a health facility | |
| Distance to a clinic is a big problem | 27.5% |
| Getting medical help for self | |
| Permission for self-medical help (big problem) | 11.7% |
| Antenatal care variable | |
| Number of ANC visits | |
| ≥ 4 times | 57.2% |
| Sample size | 12,294 |
IPTp-SP intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, ANC antenatal care
Fig. 1The concentration curve for adequate (≥ 3) uptake of Intermittent Preventive Treatment in Pregnancy with Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) in total, urban and rural areas of Nigeria. a Concentration curve of IPTp-SP uptake in Nigeria as a whole. b Concentration curve of IPTp-SP uptake in urban areas of Nigeria. c Concentration curve of IPTp-SP uptake in rural areas of Nigeria
Socioeconomic inequalities for adequate (≥ 3) uptake of IPTp-SP in pregnancy in Nigeria
| The Cn Index | ||
|---|---|---|
| Total | Urban | Rural |
| 0.062 (0.048 to 0.076) | 0.283 (0.279 to 0.288) | − 0.238 (− 0.242 to − 0.235) |
95% confidence intervals in parentheses
Decomposition of the socioeconomic inequality in adequate (≥ 3) uptake of IPTp-SP among pregnant women in Nigeria, 2018
| Variables | Marginal effect | Elasticities | Ck | Contribution to Cn | Percentage contribution (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute | Summed | |||||
| Age group | ||||||
| 15–24 (ref) | ||||||
| 25–34 | 0.007*** | 0.009 | 0.017 | 0.000 | ||
| 35–49 | 0.010*** | 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.000 | ||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married | 0.012*** | 0.031 | − 0.059 | − 0.001 | − 0.001 | − 1.90 |
| Others (ref) | ||||||
| Level of education (women) | ||||||
| No formal education (ref) | ||||||
| Primary | − 0.017*** | − 0.009 | − 0.096 | 0.001 | ||
| Secondary | − 0.015*** | − 0.023 | 0.197 | − 0.003 | ||
| Tertiary | − 0.021*** | − 0.009 | 0.459 | − 0.003 | ||
| Level of education (husband) | ||||||
| No formal education (ref) | ||||||
| Primary | 0.003*** | 0.002 | − 0.097 | 0.000 | ||
| Secondary | 0.052** | 0.067 | 0.173 | 0.008 | ||
| Tertiary | 0.054** | 0.033 | 0.395 | 0.010 | 0.018 | 20.01 |
| Wealth index of households | ||||||
| Poorest (ref) | ||||||
| Poorer | − 0.075* | − 0.056 | − 0.437 | 0.018 | ||
| Middle | − 0.091* | − 0.068 | − 0.437 | 0.022 | ||
| Richer | − 0.078* | − 0.064 | 0.563 | − 0.026 | ||
| Richest | − 0.083* | − 0.070 | 0.563 | − 0.029 | − 0.016 | − 25.90 |
| Employment status | ||||||
| Unemployed (ref) | ||||||
| Employed | − 0.015*** | − 0.038 | 0.018 | − 0.001 | − 0.001 | − 0.84 |
| Religion | ||||||
| Christian (ref) | ||||||
| Muslim | 0.035*** | 0.072 | − 0.129 | − 0.007 | ||
| Others | − 0.139 | − 0.003 | − 0.147 | 0.000 | − 0.006 | − 10.57 |
| Place of residence | ||||||
| Urban | − 0.024*** | − 0.042 | 0.282 | − 0.009 | − 0.009 | − 14.28 |
| Rural (ref) | ||||||
| Geopolitical zone | ||||||
| North-Central (ref) | ||||||
| North-East | − 0.073* | − 0.045 | − 0.235 | 0.008 | ||
| North-West | − 0.091* | − 0.102 | − 0.206 | 0.016 | ||
| South-East | 0.249 | 0.113 | 0.180 | 0.015 | ||
| South-South | 0.070* | 0.031 | 0.228 | 0.005 | ||
| South-West | − 0.014*** | − 0.009 | 0.351 | − 0.002 | 0.041 | 67.38 |
| Distance to health facility (big problem) | − 0.029** | − 0.029 | − 0.175 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 6.17 |
| Permission for self-medical help (big problem) | 0.005*** | 0.002 | − 0.106 | 0.000 | 0.000 | − 0.31 |
| Number of ANC visits (≥ 4 times) | 0.068* | 0.151 | 0.148 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 26.92 |
| Sum | 0.041 | 66.67 | ||||
| Residual | 0.020 | 33.33 | ||||
| Total Cn | 0.061 | 100.00 | ||||
The percentage of contributions was calculated by dividing the specific “summed” contribution by the absolute values of Cn and multiplying by 100. The sum of all the percentage contributions should add up to 100 percent. The value 0.00 is not zero but due to rounding; Marginal effects were calculated at the means of the predictor variables
IPTp-SP intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, ANC antenatal care
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
Fig. 2Absolute contribution of each factor to socioeconomic inequality in the uptake of IPTp-SP in Nigeria, 2018. The y-axis of the chart shows the absolute negative/positive contribution of each predictor to the Cn; IPTp-SP Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, ANC antenatal care