Prevalence of institutional delivery and its correlates amongst women of reproductive age in Mozambique: a cross-sectional analysis.
Adolescent
Adult
Cesarean Section
/ statistics & numerical data
Cross-Sectional Studies
Delivery, Obstetric
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Health Care Surveys
Health Facilities
Home Childbirth
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Maternal Health Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Mozambique
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Pregnancy
Prenatal Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Rural Population
/ statistics & numerical data
Socioeconomic Factors
Urban Population
/ statistics & numerical data
Young Adult
C-section
Facility delivery
Global health
Mozambique
Women’s health, demographic and health surveys
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Apr 2020
16 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
07
01
2020
accepted:
08
04
2020
entrez:
18
4
2020
pubmed:
18
4
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The healthcare system in Mozambique is striving to reduce the high maternal and child mortality rates and stay on par with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 3.1). A key strategy to curb maternal and child mortality is to promote the use of professional childbirth services proven to be highly effective in averting maternal deaths. Currently, little is known about the use of childbirth services in Mozambique. The present study investigated the prevalence of professional healthcare delivery services and identified their sociodemographic correlates. This study used cross-sectional data on 7080 women aged 15-49 years who reported having a child during the past 5 years. The data were collected from the 2011Mozambique Demographic and Health Survey. The outcome variables were the choice of childbirth services that included 1) place of delivery (respondent's home versus health facility), and mode of delivery (caesarean section versus vaginal birth). Data were analyzed using descriptive and multivariate regression methods. The prevalence of health facility and C-section delivery was 70.7 and 5.6%, respectively. There was a difference in the use of professional birthing services between urban and rural areas. Having better educational status and living in households of higher wealth quintiles showed a positive association with the use of facility delivery services among both urban and rural residents. Regarding ethnicity, women of Portugais [2.688,1.540,4.692], Cindau [1.876,1.423,2.474] and Xichangana [1.557,1.215,1.996] had relatively higher odds of using facility delivery services than others. Antenatal care (ANC) visits were a significant predictor of facility delivery services both in urban [OR = 1.655, 95%CI = 1.235,2.218] and rural [OR = 1.265, 95%CI = 1.108,1.445] areas. Among rural women, ANC visit was a significant predictor of C-section delivery [1.570,1.042,2.365]. More than a quarter of the women in Mozambique were not using health facility delivery services, with the prevalence being noticeably lower in the rural areas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The healthcare system in Mozambique is striving to reduce the high maternal and child mortality rates and stay on par with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 3.1). A key strategy to curb maternal and child mortality is to promote the use of professional childbirth services proven to be highly effective in averting maternal deaths. Currently, little is known about the use of childbirth services in Mozambique. The present study investigated the prevalence of professional healthcare delivery services and identified their sociodemographic correlates.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used cross-sectional data on 7080 women aged 15-49 years who reported having a child during the past 5 years. The data were collected from the 2011Mozambique Demographic and Health Survey. The outcome variables were the choice of childbirth services that included 1) place of delivery (respondent's home versus health facility), and mode of delivery (caesarean section versus vaginal birth). Data were analyzed using descriptive and multivariate regression methods.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prevalence of health facility and C-section delivery was 70.7 and 5.6%, respectively. There was a difference in the use of professional birthing services between urban and rural areas. Having better educational status and living in households of higher wealth quintiles showed a positive association with the use of facility delivery services among both urban and rural residents. Regarding ethnicity, women of Portugais [2.688,1.540,4.692], Cindau [1.876,1.423,2.474] and Xichangana [1.557,1.215,1.996] had relatively higher odds of using facility delivery services than others. Antenatal care (ANC) visits were a significant predictor of facility delivery services both in urban [OR = 1.655, 95%CI = 1.235,2.218] and rural [OR = 1.265, 95%CI = 1.108,1.445] areas. Among rural women, ANC visit was a significant predictor of C-section delivery [1.570,1.042,2.365].
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
More than a quarter of the women in Mozambique were not using health facility delivery services, with the prevalence being noticeably lower in the rural areas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32299468
doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-0905-4
pii: 10.1186/s12978-020-0905-4
pmc: PMC7161123
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49Références
PLoS One. 2018 May 3;13(5):e0196896
pubmed: 29723253
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 27;12(10):e0187303
pubmed: 29077754
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 13;12(2):e0171573
pubmed: 28192478
Lancet. 2007 Oct 13;370(9595):1358-69
pubmed: 17933651
J Int AIDS Soc. 2015 Dec 01;18(Suppl 5):20290
pubmed: 26643461
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1279
pubmed: 30322560
PLoS One. 2018 May 21;13(5):e0197324
pubmed: 29782511
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 29;13(11):e0207942
pubmed: 30496236
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019 Feb;24(1):18-23
pubmed: 30747544
PLoS Med. 2018 Jan 23;15(1):e1002494
pubmed: 29360829
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Jul 20;112(29-30):489-95
pubmed: 26249251
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 18;13(7):e0199883
pubmed: 30020958
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 7;7(9):e017142
pubmed: 28882921
Mhealth. 2017 Sep 14;3:39
pubmed: 29184891
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr;202(4):335-43
pubmed: 20060513
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1186-e1195
pubmed: 30322649
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 May 3;18(1):125
pubmed: 29724178
Front Public Health. 2019 Jun 25;7:161
pubmed: 31294012
Conserv Biol. 2017 Aug;31(4):772-780
pubmed: 27757996
Am J Public Health. 2014 Jan;104(1):15-6
pubmed: 24228679
Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2017 Nov 7;3:19
pubmed: 29142757
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 6;13(12):e0208729
pubmed: 30521640
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 19;19(1):179
pubmed: 30890133
Int J Womens Health. 2015 Feb 18;7:239-42
pubmed: 25733929
J Autism Dev Disord. 2016 Apr;46(4):1368-78
pubmed: 26707626
J Int AIDS Soc. 2015 Dec 01;18(Suppl 5):20280
pubmed: 26643455
Womens Health (Lond). 2017 Aug;13(2):34-40
pubmed: 28681676
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Oct;107 Suppl 1:S89-112
pubmed: 19815200
Reprod Health. 2015 Jun 21;12:57
pubmed: 26093498
BMJ Glob Health. 2016 Aug 16;1(2):e000085
pubmed: 28588940
CMAJ. 2016 Dec 6;188(17-18):E474-E483
pubmed: 27503870
BMC Palliat Care. 2016 Jun 29;15:54
pubmed: 27357123
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 2;11(12):e0167268
pubmed: 27911935
Reprod Health. 2018 Jun 22;15(Suppl 1):98
pubmed: 29945657