Enablers and barriers to post-discharge follow-up among women who have undergone a caesarean section: experiences from a prospective cohort in rural Rwanda.


Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Jun 2022
Historique:
received: 30 03 2022
accepted: 27 05 2022
entrez: 2 6 2022
pubmed: 3 6 2022
medline: 7 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Caesarean sections account for roughly one third of all surgical procedures performed in low-income countries. Due to lack of standardised post-discharge follow-up protocols and practices, most of available data are extracted from clinical charts during hospitalization and are thus sub-optimal for answering post-discharge outcomes questions. This study aims to determine enablers and barriers to returning to the hospital after discharge among women who have undergone a c-section at a rural district hospital in Rwanda. Women aged ≥ 18 years who underwent c-section at Kirehe District Hospital in rural Rwanda in the period March to October 2017 were prospectively followed. A structured questionnaire was administered to participants and clinical data were extracted from medical files between March and October 2017. At discharge, consenting women were given an appointment to return for follow-up on postoperative day 10 (POD 10) (± 3 days) and provided a voucher to cover transport and compensation for participation to be redeemed on their return. Study participants received a reminder call on the eve of their scheduled appointment. We used a backward stepwise logistic regression, at an α = 0.05 significance level, to identify enablers and barriers associated with post-discharge follow-up return. Of 586 study participants, the majority (62.6%) were between 21-30 years old and 86.4% had a phone contact number. Of those eligible, 90.4% returned for follow-up. The predictors of return were counselling by a female data collector (OR = 9.85, 95%CI:1.43-37.59) and receiving a reminder call (OR = 16.47, 95%CI:7.07-38.38). Having no insurance reduced the odds of returning to follow-up (OR = 0.03, 95%CI:0.03-0.23), and those who spent more than 10.6 Euro for transport to and from the hospital were less likely to return to follow-up (OR = 0.14, 95%CI:0.04- 0.50). mHealh interventions using calls or notifications can increase the post-discharge follow-up uptake. The reminder calls to patients and discharge counselling by a gender-matching provider had a positive effect on return to care. Further interventions are needed targeting the uninsured and patients facing transportation hardship. Additionally, association between counselling of women patients by a female data collector and greater return to follow-up needs further exploration to optimize counselling procedures.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Caesarean sections account for roughly one third of all surgical procedures performed in low-income countries. Due to lack of standardised post-discharge follow-up protocols and practices, most of available data are extracted from clinical charts during hospitalization and are thus sub-optimal for answering post-discharge outcomes questions. This study aims to determine enablers and barriers to returning to the hospital after discharge among women who have undergone a c-section at a rural district hospital in Rwanda.
METHODS METHODS
Women aged ≥ 18 years who underwent c-section at Kirehe District Hospital in rural Rwanda in the period March to October 2017 were prospectively followed. A structured questionnaire was administered to participants and clinical data were extracted from medical files between March and October 2017. At discharge, consenting women were given an appointment to return for follow-up on postoperative day 10 (POD 10) (± 3 days) and provided a voucher to cover transport and compensation for participation to be redeemed on their return. Study participants received a reminder call on the eve of their scheduled appointment. We used a backward stepwise logistic regression, at an α = 0.05 significance level, to identify enablers and barriers associated with post-discharge follow-up return.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 586 study participants, the majority (62.6%) were between 21-30 years old and 86.4% had a phone contact number. Of those eligible, 90.4% returned for follow-up. The predictors of return were counselling by a female data collector (OR = 9.85, 95%CI:1.43-37.59) and receiving a reminder call (OR = 16.47, 95%CI:7.07-38.38). Having no insurance reduced the odds of returning to follow-up (OR = 0.03, 95%CI:0.03-0.23), and those who spent more than 10.6 Euro for transport to and from the hospital were less likely to return to follow-up (OR = 0.14, 95%CI:0.04- 0.50).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
mHealh interventions using calls or notifications can increase the post-discharge follow-up uptake. The reminder calls to patients and discharge counselling by a gender-matching provider had a positive effect on return to care. Further interventions are needed targeting the uninsured and patients facing transportation hardship. Additionally, association between counselling of women patients by a female data collector and greater return to follow-up needs further exploration to optimize counselling procedures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35655212
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08137-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08137-5
pmc: PMC9160515
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

733

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

J Hosp Infect. 2014 Jan;86(1):24-33
pubmed: 24268456
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014 Aug 05;2(3):328-41
pubmed: 25276592
Int J Womens Health. 2019 May 09;11:309-318
pubmed: 31191039
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1775-1812
pubmed: 27733286
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2018 May;47(3):371-384
pubmed: 29524378
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Mar 1;94(3):201-209F
pubmed: 26966331
BMJ Open. 2016 Oct 24;6(10):e012116
pubmed: 27798006
Psychol Rep. 2014 Oct;115(2):565-83
pubmed: 25243363
J Hosp Infect. 2013 Jan;83(1):41-5
pubmed: 23088921
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 May/Jun;18(4):451-454
pubmed: 28402728
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Community Health. 2010 Jun;35(3):240-8
pubmed: 20127505
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007 Sep-Oct;15(5):992-7
pubmed: 18157453
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016 Oct;17(5):510-9
pubmed: 27463235
J Environ Public Health. 2018 Dec 18;2018:2624591
pubmed: 30662470
IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2019;12:100-122
pubmed: 30188840
Br J Surg. 2019 Jan;106(2):e121-e128
pubmed: 30620071
World J Surg. 2016 Jul;40(7):1537-41
pubmed: 26932877
J Clin Psychol. 2018 Sep;74(9):1403-1421
pubmed: 29573351
Lancet. 2015 Apr 27;385 Suppl 2:S33
pubmed: 26313081
New Microbiol. 2016 Apr;39(2):134-8
pubmed: 27196552
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 18;14(3):e0213822
pubmed: 30883589
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Jun;130 Suppl 2:S32-9
pubmed: 26115855
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2020 Sep;21(7):613-620
pubmed: 32423365
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Mar 1;55(3):494-500
pubmed: 30084908
Lancet. 2011 Jan 15;377(9761):228-41
pubmed: 21146207
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Sep 1;90(9):685-92
pubmed: 22984313
Glob J Health Sci. 2016 Jan 21;8(9):54429
pubmed: 27157176
J Water Health. 2020 Oct;18(5):741-752
pubmed: 33095197
Health Econ Rev. 2018 Oct 13;8(1):26
pubmed: 30317395
J Hosp Infect. 2008 Oct;70(2):166-73
pubmed: 18723248
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Nov;107(5):757-61
pubmed: 21857016
Lancet. 2015 Apr 27;385 Suppl 2:S47
pubmed: 26313096
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 3;20(1):1003
pubmed: 33143717
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017 May 8;6:43
pubmed: 28503302
Couns Psychol Q. 2013 Sep;26(3-4):330-342
pubmed: 24578592
World J Surg. 2011 May;35(5):941-50
pubmed: 21360305

Auteurs

Theoneste Nkurunziza (T)

Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima, KG 9 Avenue 46, PO Box 3432, Kigali, Rwanda. theonkrz@gmail.com.
Epidemiology Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. theonkrz@gmail.com.

Robert Riviello (R)

Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.

Frederick Kateera (F)

Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima, KG 9 Avenue 46, PO Box 3432, Kigali, Rwanda.

Edison Nihiwacu (E)

Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima, KG 9 Avenue 46, PO Box 3432, Kigali, Rwanda.

Jonathan Nkurunziza (J)

Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima, KG 9 Avenue 46, PO Box 3432, Kigali, Rwanda.

Magdalena Gruendl (M)

Epidemiology Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Stefanie J Klug (SJ)

Epidemiology Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Bethany Hedt-Gauthier (B)

Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH