Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ra+ngs
of
the
experience
of
delivery
care:
Household
survey
ndings
from
Nairobis
informal
se>lements
Global
Maternal
Health
Conference
2013
Arusha,
Tanzania
Background
Skilled
birth
a-endance
is
<50%
for
most
countries
in
South
Asia
and
Sub-Saharan
Africa.
(UNFPA
State
of
Worlds
Midwifery
2011)
Prior
studies:
women
an+cipa+ng
poor
treatment
were
deterred
from
birth
in
facili+es
or
reaching
referral
hospital
(References
slide)
Focus
on
human
rights
sexual,
reproduc+ve,
maternal
(IPPF
1996)
Increasing
a>en+on
to
private
sector:
focus
on
services
oered
and
groups
served
(Brugha,
2003,
Parkhurst,
2005)
Objec+ves
1. To
describe
ra+ngs
of
womens
delivery
care
experience
in
health
facili;es
in
Nairobis
informal
se>lements
Explore
dierences
by
facility
type
2. To
examine
factors
associated
with
delivery
care
empathy
related
to
womens
and
service
characteris+cs
Explore
dierences
by
complica+ons
status
Guiding Framework
Methods
Household
Survey
Study
of
African
Popula;on
and
Health
Research
Center
(APHRC)
and
World
Bank
(2006)
in
demographic
surveillance
area
Maternal
Health:
care
seeking
behavior
and
u;liza;on
for
antenatal
and
delivery
care
complica+ons,
expenditures
Sample:
All
women
who
had
pregnancy
outcome
in
2004-2005
Response
rate
84%
Sedng:
Korogocho: Older and more stable se>lement, 12 km from city center, higher popula+on density, near a municipal waste site, has higher infant and under-5 mortality rate than Viwandani Viwandani: Se>lement near the industrial area, 7 km from center
This
analysis:
Inclusion
criteria:
women
who
delivered
in
health
facili;es
in
order
to
study
womens
experience
with
facility-based
birth
(n=1,266
out
of
1,926)
6
excluded 81 women found delivered in sedng led by tradi+onal birth a>endant (TBA)
Step 4: predicted factor scores for 2 factors were obtained (based on 5 items).
Mul+variate
Analysis
Dependent
variable
delivery
care
empathy
Independent
variables:
A)
characteris+cs
of
women
B)
u+liza+on
of
ANC
and
delivery
care
Variables
signicantly
associated
with
delivery
care
empathy
at
bivariate
level
(t
test)
were
entered
to
a
mul+variate
model
Mul;variate
linear
regression
adjusted
for
clustering
by
enumera+on
area
(neighborhood)
checked
for
collinearity
(vif)
Results
Sample Characteris+cs
showed
genuine
interest
oered
compassionate
care
listened
to
Qs
or
concerns
explained
health
status
privacy
during
exam
0%
% Disagree % Agree
8% 0% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8% to 26% agreed
Private in Se>lement (n=740) Mission (n=51) Gov't Hospital (n=393) Gov't Health Center (n=28)
% Agree
privacy
not scolded
On
7
out
of
9
items
(4
items
shown),
private
clinics
in
informal
se>lements
were
rated
higher
than
govt
hospitals
(p<.001)
N=1263
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.01
Independent Variables Age: 20-29 vs. <20 (ref) 30+ Life;me No. of Pregnancies: 2 to 4 vs. 1 (ref) 5 to 14 Ethnicity: Kikuyu vs. Luo (ref) Kamba Luhya Other Wealth: Quin+le 2 vs. Q1 (ref) Quin+le 3 Quin+le 4 Quin+le 5 Occupa;on: Trading/Selling vs. Housework (ref) Laborer/Other Pregnancy Inten;on: Later vs. Then (ref) Not at all Complica;on in preg. or delivery: Yes vs. .No (ref) Se-lement: Korogocho vs. Viwandani (ref) Service (ANC) (n=1247) and Delivery Delivery Care Provider: Doctor/CO vs. Nurse/Midwife (ref) Facility Type: Mission Hospital vs. Private Clinic in Se>lements (r) Government Hospital
Mul;variate Model (n=1263) Standard Coecent p-value Error 0.01 0.08 0.957 0.03 0.10 0.726 0.02 0.05 0.614 0.21 0.08 0.006 -0.11 0.06 0.084 -0.12 0.10 0.180 -0.16 0.09 0.058 -0.05 0.08 0.556 0.03 0.06 0.581 0.06 0.07 0.414 0.11 0.07 0.139 0.22 0.06 0.001 0.14 0.07 0.041 0.04 0.06 0.594 -0.11 0.06 0.071 -0.18 0.08 0.033 -0.11 0.05 0.040 -0.28 0.07 0.000 0.17 0.05 0.001 0.09 -0.50 0.10 0.07 0.395 0.000
Stra;ed Mul;variate Models Independent Variables No Complica;ons (n=904) Complica;ons (n=359) Coef (SE) p Coef (SE) p 0.03 0.10 0.761 0.00 0.10 0.761 Age: 20-29 vs. <20 (ref) 30+ 0.08 0.11 0.517 0.01 0.11 0.517 -0.05 0.07 0.457 0.17 0.12 0.118 Parity/Life;me No. of Pregnancies: 2 to 4 vs. 1 (ref) 5 to 14 0.09 0.09 0.332 0.18 0.001 0.46 -0.09 0.08 0.255 -0.17 0.13 0.156 Ethnicity: Kikuyu vs. Luo (ref) Kamba -0.07 0.10 0.538 -0.30 0.14 0.066 Luhya -0.19 0.10 0.051 -0.12 0.12 0.387 Other -0.08 0.10 0.438 0.00 0.12 0.955 0.03 0.08 0.768 0.08 0.13 0.571 Wealth: Quin+le 2 vs. Q1 (ref) Quin+le 3 0.05 0.08 0.576 0.11 0.15 0.461 Quin+le 4 0.12 0.08 0.115 0.08 0.17 0.658 Quin+le 5 0.24 0.07 0.001 0.14 0.14 0.336 0.18 0.07 0.027 0.04 0.12 0.725 Occupa;on: Trading/Selling vs. Housework (ref) Laborer/Other 0.06 0.07 0.452 0.00 0.12 0.926 -0.09 0.07 0.150 -0.12 0.11 0.266 Pregnancy Inten;on: Later vs. Then (ref) Not at all -0.17 0.09 0.067 -0.18 0.15 0.226 -0.29 0.08 0.000 -0.25 0.11 0.021 Se-lement: Korogocho vs. Viwandani (ref) Service-related Delivery Care Provider: Doctor vs. Nurse/Midwife 0.12 0.06 0.046 0.25 0.08 0.002 (ref) Facility Type: Mission Hospital vs. Private Clinic in 0.04 0.11 0.701 0.22 0.17 0.203 Se>lements (r) Government Hospital 0.08 0.000 0.11 0.003 -0.55 -0.35 Government Health Center -0.03 0.16 0.852 -0.20 0.40 0.617 Constant -0.04 0.21 0.835
Implica+ons
Seek
clients
perspec;ve
and
ra+ngs
Improve
delivery
care
experience
with
standards- based
quality
assurance
Iden+fy
women
who
receive
higher
and
lower
quality
experience
in
delivery
care
close
the
gap
Research
Household
surveys
complement
other
data
sources
Qualita;ve
research
can
inform
development
and
explana+on
of
survey
ndings
Validated
tool
with
many
items
is
needed,
adapted
to
local
context
Commi>ee: J. Bertrand, A. Tsui, D. Peters, V. Go Popula+on, Family and Reproduc+ve Health Department: Academic guidance, grants to student
Supplemental Slides
Provider Perspectives u Observations Surveys Using checklists or structured guides Interviews Audio or videotapes FGDs Simulated client Review of hypothetical cases Role-playing with coached clients