Is the closest health facility the one used in pregnancy care-seeking? A cross-sectional comparative analysis of self-reported and modelled geographical access to maternal care in Mozambique, India and Pakistan.
Bland–Altman Index
Fixed bias
Limits of agreement
Potential access
Proportional bias
Realised access
Journal
International journal of health geographics
ISSN: 1476-072X
Titre abrégé: Int J Health Geogr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101152198
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 02 2020
03 02 2020
Historique:
received:
26
08
2019
accepted:
21
01
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
20
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Travel time to care is known to influence uptake of health services. Generally, pregnant women who take longer to transit to health facilities are the least likely to deliver in facilities. It is not clear if modelled access predicts fairly the vulnerability in women seeking maternal care across different spatial settings. This cross-sectional analysis aimed to (i) compare travel times to care as modelled in a GIS environment with self-reported travel times by women seeking maternal care in Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia: Mozambique, India and Pakistan; and (ii) investigate the assumption that women would seek care at the closest health facility. Women were interviewed to obtain estimated travel times to health facilities (R). Travel time to the closest facility was also modelled (P) (closest facility tool (ArcGIS)) and time to facility where care was sought estimated (A) (route network layer finder (ArcGIS)). Bland-Altman analysis compared spatial variation in differences between modelled and self-reported travel times. Variations between travel times to the nearest facility (P) with modelled travel times to the actual facilities accessed (A) were analysed. Log-transformed data comparison graphs for medians, with box plots superimposed distributions were used. Modelled geographical access (P) is generally lower than self-reported access (R), but there is a geography to this relationship. In India and Pakistan, potential access (P) compared fairly with self-reported travel times (R) [P (H Modelling access successfully predict potential vulnerability in populations. Differences between modelled (P) and self-reported travel times (R) are partially a result of women not seeking care at their closest facilities. Modelling access should not be viewed through a geographically static lens. Modelling assumptions are likely modified by spatio-temporal and/or socio-cultural settings. Geographical stratification of access reveals disproportionate variations in differences emphasizing the varied nature of assumptions across spatial settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01911494. Registered 30 July 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01911494.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Travel time to care is known to influence uptake of health services. Generally, pregnant women who take longer to transit to health facilities are the least likely to deliver in facilities. It is not clear if modelled access predicts fairly the vulnerability in women seeking maternal care across different spatial settings.
OBJECTIVES
This cross-sectional analysis aimed to (i) compare travel times to care as modelled in a GIS environment with self-reported travel times by women seeking maternal care in Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia: Mozambique, India and Pakistan; and (ii) investigate the assumption that women would seek care at the closest health facility.
METHODS
Women were interviewed to obtain estimated travel times to health facilities (R). Travel time to the closest facility was also modelled (P) (closest facility tool (ArcGIS)) and time to facility where care was sought estimated (A) (route network layer finder (ArcGIS)). Bland-Altman analysis compared spatial variation in differences between modelled and self-reported travel times. Variations between travel times to the nearest facility (P) with modelled travel times to the actual facilities accessed (A) were analysed. Log-transformed data comparison graphs for medians, with box plots superimposed distributions were used.
RESULTS
Modelled geographical access (P) is generally lower than self-reported access (R), but there is a geography to this relationship. In India and Pakistan, potential access (P) compared fairly with self-reported travel times (R) [P (H
CONCLUSION
Modelling access successfully predict potential vulnerability in populations. Differences between modelled (P) and self-reported travel times (R) are partially a result of women not seeking care at their closest facilities. Modelling access should not be viewed through a geographically static lens. Modelling assumptions are likely modified by spatio-temporal and/or socio-cultural settings. Geographical stratification of access reveals disproportionate variations in differences emphasizing the varied nature of assumptions across spatial settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01911494. Registered 30 July 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01911494.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32013994
doi: 10.1186/s12942-020-0197-5
pii: 10.1186/s12942-020-0197-5
pmc: PMC6998252
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01911494']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1Références
Int J Health Geogr. 2006 Sep 19;5:40
pubmed: 16984650
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 Nov 06;5:56
pubmed: 18990237
Soc Sci Med. 1994 Apr;38(8):1091-110
pubmed: 8042057
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002 Jul;29(7):527-36
pubmed: 12060093
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 24;6(11):e013059
pubmed: 27884848
Int J Health Geogr. 2017 Jan 13;16(1):1
pubmed: 28086893
Int J Health Geogr. 2016 Mar 01;15:10
pubmed: 26932155
Int J Health Geogr. 2006 Apr 13;5:16
pubmed: 16613601
Int J Health Geogr. 2002 Dec 9;1(1):4
pubmed: 12537589
Int J Circumpolar Health. 2019 Dec;78(1):1571385
pubmed: 30696379