| Literature DB >> 35686201 |
Hermann Badolo1,2, Aristide Romaric Bado3,4, Hervé Hien2,5, Manuela De Allegri6, Appunni Sathiya Susuman1.
Abstract
Introduction: Antenatal care (ANC) is one of the pillars of maternal and child health programs aimed at preventing and reducing maternal and child morbidity and mortality. This study aims to identify the factors associated with ANC use, considering both health care demand and supply factors in the single analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Burkina Faso; antenatal care; determinants; health services utilization; multilevel analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35686201 PMCID: PMC9173586 DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2022.848401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Glob Womens Health ISSN: 2673-5059
Measurement of explanatory variables included in the estimated models.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Mother's age at last birth | The questionnaire did not include a direct question on the age at last birth; we computed this indicator by subtracting the child's age from the woman's current age and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. |
| Mother's use of modern contraceptive | We measure this indicator through reported use of modern contraceptive (Yes/No). |
| Mother's education | The highest level of education attained is divided into two categories: none and primary and above (combining primary and higher education categories together). |
| Mother's occupation | It has been re-coded in two categories: not working [Employee, employee, piecework (daily work), self-employed/self-employed worker, member of a producers' cooperative, family worker, apprentice] and working [looking for a job (unemployed), pupils/students, housewife]. |
| Last birth order | We distinguish between mothers whose most recent birth is rank 1 and 2 and those whose most recent birth is of a higher rank. It has been re-coded first-order birth, second-order birth, third-order birth and above |
| Household wealth index | We constructed a scale for household wealth index from information on possession of specific household items and utilities. The resulting scale was divided into five quintiles, coded poorest, poorer, middle, richer and richest. |
| Household size | It has been re-coded in 1–3, 4–5 and 6 and above. |
| Community concentration of female education | Aggregate values of community level of female education are measured by the proportion of women with a minimum of primary level of education derived from data on respondent's level of education categorized as: “0% = Low”, “ <25% = Medium” and “25% and above = High” |
| Community concentration of poverty | Aggregate values of community-level poverty are measured by the proportion of households in the poorest wealth quintile derived from data on wealth index categorized as: “ <15% = Low”, “15–40% = Medium” and “>40% = High”. |
| Community concentration of modern contraceptive prevalence | Aggregate values of community level of modern contraceptive prevalence are measured by the proportion of women who are currently using modern contraceptive categorized as: “ ≤ 15% = Low”, “15–40% = Medium” and “>40% = High”. |
| Type of place of residence | This variable was derived from the question on the type of place of residence. The variable place of residence recorded as rural and urban in the data set was retained without change. |
| Number of health facilities per 1,000 people | This information came from the routine health facility data. |
| The average quality of ANC at the facility | Data are captured by the facility survey from the exit interviews. The average quality of ANC at the facility, a composite quality index is constructed. The components considered, and demarcated as true/false, include the following: attendance by skilled health worker, weight and height measured, blood pressure checked, urine and blood sample taken, told about complications, given or bought iron tablets, and took fansidar as prophylaxis for malaria prevention (categorized as: “0% = Low”, “0–25% = Medium” and “>25% = High”. |
| Average distance between HF and households | It is computed from the geographic coordinates of households and health facilities (categorized as 1 = <1 km, 2 = 1–4 km and 3 = 5 km and above). |
| Performance-based financing | It is categorized as 0 = control district and 1 = intervention district. |
Described in more detail elsewhere (.
Described in more detail elsewhere (.
Variations in indicators of the use of antenatal care (ANC) services, by selected individual and household characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 15–19 | 551 | 80.94 | 0.03 |
| 20–24 | 1,688 | 80.15 | |
| 25–29 | 2,004 | 81.89 | |
| 30–34 | 1,717 | 80.84 | |
| 35–39 | 1,298 | 79.51 | |
| 40–44 | 654 | 76.91 | |
| 45–49 | 262 | 73.28 | |
|
| |||
| Yes | 2,434 | 81.88 | 0.039 |
| No | 5,740 | 80.35 | |
|
| |||
| No education | 7,265 | 80.56 | 0.035 |
| Primary and above | 909 | 82.73 | |
|
| |||
| Not working | 4,231 | 72.52 | 0.000 |
| Working | 3,943 | 89.78 | |
|
| |||
| First birth | 3,848 | 80.57 | 0.311 |
| Second birth | 3,704 | 80.74 | |
| Third birth and above | 622 | 82.74 | |
|
| |||
| Poorest | 1,368 | 82.09 | 0.581 |
| Poorer | 1,475 | 79.25 | |
| Middle | 1,592 | 80.15 | |
| Richer | 1,836 | 78.92 | |
| Richest | 1,903 | 80.82 | |
|
| |||
| 1–3 | 750 | 61.07 | 0.114 |
| 4–5 | 1,817 | 55.75 | |
| 6 and above | 5,607 | 43.64 | |
| All respondents | 8,174 | 80.80 | |
Source: Authors' own calculations from endline (2017) survey data for the impact evaluation of performance-based financing (PBF) in Burkina Faso.
Variations in indicators of the use of ANC visits, by selected community and districts characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Rural | 7,538 | 80.43 | 0.003 |
| Urban | 636 | 85.22 | |
|
| |||
| Low (0%) | 1,863 | 75.58 | 0.000 |
| Medium (>25%) | 5,403 | 82.45 | |
| High (25% and above) | 908 | 81.72 | |
|
| |||
| Low (<15%) | 2,245 | 87.04 | 0.000 |
| Medium (15–40%) | 4,134 | 75.06 | |
| High (40% and above) | 1,795 | 86.24 | |
|
| |||
| Low (<15%) | 1,573 | 76.10 | 0.000 |
| Medium (15–40%) | 5,781 | 80.71 | |
| High (40% &+) | 820 | 90.49 | |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Low (<0.15) | 2,411 | 68.89 | 0.000 |
| Medium (0.15–0.2) | 3,586 | 82.40 | |
| High (0.20 and above) | 2,177 | 91.73 | |
|
| |||
| >1 km | 1,107 | 88.17 | 0.000 |
| 1–4 km | 3,438 | 81.04 | |
| 5 km and above | 3,629 | 78.45 | |
|
| |||
| Low | 6,315 | 49.24 | 0.000 |
| Medium | 1,255 | 86.05 | |
| High | 604 | 92.38 | |
|
| |||
| Control | 1,899 | 80.75 | 0.520 |
| Intervention | 6,275 | 81.41 | |
| All respondents | 8,174 | 80.80 | |
Source: Authors' own calculations from endline (2017) survey data for the impact evaluation of PBF in Burkina Faso.
Parameter coefficients for the multilevel model of the use of ANC visits—assesses the role of variables at different levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 15–19 | 551 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 20–24 | 1,688 | 1.18 (0.82–1.70) | 1.17 (082–1.70) | 1.18 (0.82–1.70) | |
| 25–29 | 2,004 | 1.05 (0.72–1.51) | 1.04 (0.73–1.52) | 1.05 (0.72–1.52) | |
| 30–34 | 1,717 | 1.04 (071–1.52) | 1.05 (0.71–1.54) | 1.04 (0.71–1.54) | |
| 35–39 | 1,298 | 0.75 (0.51–1.12) | 0.76 (0.52–1.13) | 0.76 (0.52–1.130) | |
| 40–44 | 654 | 0.98 (0.64–1.52) | 1.01(0.65–1.56) | 1.01 (065–1.56) | |
| 45–49 | 262 | 1.29 | 1.28 | 1.27 (0.73–2.22) | |
|
| |||||
| Yes | 2,434 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| No | 5,74 | 0.96 (0.81–1.14) | 0.95 (0.80–1.13) | 0.87 (0.80–1.13) | |
|
| |||||
| No education | 7,265 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Primary and above | 909 | 1.95 (1.29–2.35) | 1.54 (1.28–2.02) | 1.53 (1.29–2.01) | |
|
| |||||
| Not working | 4,251 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Working | 3,923 | 5.50 | 5.38 | 5.41 | |
|
| |||||
| First birth | 3,896 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Second child | 3,687 | 1.02 | 1.01 (0.71–1.31) | 1.01 (0.86–1.43) | |
| Fourth child and above | 591 | 1.03 (0.67–1.78) | 1.02 (0.67–1.28) | 1.02 (0.75–1.36) | |
|
| |||||
| Poorest | 1,368 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Poorer | 1,475 | 1.048 | 1.05 (0.60–1.56) | 1.06 (0.59–1.29) | |
| Middle | 1,592 | 1.063 | 1.07 (0.74–1.51) | 1.07 (074–1.32) | |
| Richer | 1,836 | 1.174 | 1.18 (0.63–1.43) | 1.18 (0.62–1.49) | |
| Richest | 1,903 | 1.126 (0.66–1.42) | 1.14 (0.66–1.46) | 1.13 (0.66–1.47) | |
|
| |||||
| 1–3 | 750 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 4–5 | 1,817 | 1.013 (065–1.29) | 1.02 (0.65–1.64) | 1.025 (0.65–1.65) | |
| 6 and above | 5,607 | 0.87 (063–1.22) | 0.86 (0.62–1.45) | 0.88 (0.62–01.21) | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Rural | 7,538 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Urban | 636 | 1.12 (0.62–1.47) | 1.012 (0.61–1.56) | ||
|
| |||||
| Low (0) | 1,863 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Medium (0–25%) | 5,403 | 1.93 (1.75–2.12) | 1.92 (1.74–2.11) | ||
| High (25% and above) | 908 | 1.99 (1.67–2.22) | 2.04 (1.66–2.2.36) | ||
|
| |||||
| Low (<15%) | 2,245 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Moderate (15–40%) | 4,134 | 0.61 | 0.62 | ||
| High (40% and above) | 1,795 | 0.67 | 0.68 | ||
|
| |||||
| Low (<15%) | 1,573 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Moderate (15–40%) | 5,781 | 1.88 | 1.88 | ||
| High (40% and above) | 820 | 2.76 (2.19–3.60) | 2.41(2.20–3.60) | ||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Low (<0.15) | 2,411 | 1.00 | |||
| Medium (0.15–0.2) | 3,586 | 1.43 (1.09–2.03) | |||
| High (0.20 and above) | 2,177 | 1.38 (1.06–2.67) | |||
|
| |||||
| Low | 1,273 | 1.00 | |||
| Medium | 4,320 | 0.96 (0.54–1.17) | |||
| High | 2,581 | 0.91 (0.36–2.11) | |||
|
| |||||
| Low | 6,315 | 1.00 | |||
| Medium | 1,255 | 1.19 (1.02–2.26) | |||
| High | 604 | 2.96 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 1,899 |
| |||
| Intervention district | 6,275 | 1.912 (1.30–3.01) | |||
|
| |||||
| District-level variance | 1.828 | 2.241 | 2.167 | 1.956 | |
| Residual intraclass correlation | 0.463 | 0.402 | 0.401 | 0.378 | |
| Log likelihood | −2,634.787 | −2,427.2153 | −2,414.8049 | −2,413.429 | |
| Akaike crit. (AIC) | 5,275.575 | 4,894.431 | 4,883.610 | 4,896.251 | |
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.1.
Source: Authors' own calculations from endline (2017) survey data for the impact evaluation of PBF in Burkina Faso.