Utilization of delivery services at the primary health care level in rural Vietnam.

Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, 5th Floor, 57 Quang Trung Street, Hanoi, Viet Nam.
Social Science [?] Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.56). 01/2005; 59(12):2585-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study is to investigate factors that influence the utilization of delivery services at the primary health care level in rural Vietnam. A quantitative survey was conducted amongst 200 women who had given birth within the past 3 months. Focus group discussions and in-depth-interviews were then undertaken using the attitudes--social influence--self-efficacy model to obtain complementary information on the delivery decision. The results show that client-perceived quality of services and socio-cultural and economic factors, rather than geographical access, can affect the utilization of delivery services. It is therefore important to improve the cost-efficiency of the health care network, and delivery services should be provided in a client-oriented manner taking into account economic, social and cultural factors.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inequities in both health status and coverage of health services are considered important barriers to achieving Millennium Development Goal 4. Community-based health promotion is a strategy that is believed to reduce inequities in rural low-income settings. This paper examines the contributions of community-based programming to improving the equity of newborn health in three districts in Malawi. This study is a before-and-after evaluation of Malawi's Community-Based Maternal and Newborn Care (CBMNC) program, a package of facility and community-based interventions to improve newborn health. Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs) within the catchment area of 14 health facilities were trained to make pregnancy and postnatal home visits to promote healthy behaviors and assess women and newborns for danger signs requiring referral to a facility. "Core groups" of community volunteers were also trained to raise awareness about recommended newborn care practices. Baseline and endline household surveys measured the coverage of the intervention and targeted health behaviors for this before-and-after evaluation. Wealth indices were constructed using household asset data and concentration indices were compared between baseline and endline for each indicator. The HSAs trained in the intervention reached 36.7% of women with a pregnancy home visit and 10.9% of women with a postnatal home visit within three days of delivery. Coverage of the intervention was slightly inequitable, with richer households more likely to receive one or two pregnancy home visits (concentration indices (CI) of 0.0786 and 0.0960), but not significantly more likely to receive a postnatal visit or know of a core group. Despite modest coverage levels for the intervention, health equity improved significantly over the study period for several indicators. Greater improvements in inequities were observed for knowledge indicators than for coverage of routine health services. At endline, a greater proportion of women from the poorest quintile knew three or more danger signs for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum mothers than did women from the least poor quintile (change in CI: -0.1704, -0.2464, and -0.4166, respectively; p < 0.05). Equity also significantly improved for coverage of some health behaviors, including delivery at a health facility (change in CI: -0.0591), breastfeeding within the first hour (-0.0379), and delayed bathing (-0.0405). Although these results indicate promising improvements for newborn health in Malawi, the extent to which the CBMNC program contributed to these improvements in coverage and equity are not known. The strategies through which community-based programs are implemented likely play an important role in their ability to improve equity, and further research and program monitoring are needed to ensure that the poorest households are reached by community-based health programs.
    BMC Public Health 11/2013; 13(1):1052. · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the context of maternity service, the mother's assessment of quality is central because emotional, cultural and respectful supports are vital during labour and the delivery process. This study compared client-perceived quality of maternity services between birth centres, public and private hospitals in a central hills district of Nepal. A cohort of 701 pregnant women of 5 months or more gestational age were recruited and interviewed, followed by another interview within 45 days of delivery. Perception of quality was measured by a 20-item scale with three sub-scales: health facility, health care delivery, and interpersonal aspects. Perceived quality scores were analysed by ANOVA with post-hoc comparisons and multiple linear regression. Within the health facility sub-scale, birth centre was rated lowest on items 'adequacy of medical equipment', 'health staff suited to women's health' and 'adequacy of health staff', whereas public hospital was rated the lowest with respect to 'adequacy of room', 'adequacy of water', 'environment clean', 'privacy' and 'adequacy of information'. Mean scores of total quality and sub-scales health facility and health care delivery for women attending private hospital were higher (p < 0.001) than those using birth centre or public hospital. Mean score of the sub-scale interpersonal aspects for public hospital users was lower (p < 0.001) than those delivered at private hospital and birth centre. However, perception on interpersonal aspects by women using public hospital improved significantly after delivery (p < 0.001). Overall, perception of quality differed significantly by types of health facility used for delivery. They rated lowest the supplies and equipment in birth centres and the amenities and interpersonal aspects in the public hospital. Accordingly, attention to these aspects is needed to improve the quality.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 01/2014; 14(1):45. · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High-quality obstetric delivery in a health facility reduces maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. This systematic review synthesizes qualitative evidence related to the facilitators and barriers to delivering at health facilities in low- and middle-income countries. We aim to provide a useful framework for better understanding how various factors influence the decision-making process and the ultimate location of delivery at a facility or elsewhere. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL and gray literature databases. Study quality was evaluated using the CASP checklist. The confidence in the findings was assessed using the CERQual method. Thirty-four studies from 17 countries were included. Findings were organized under four broad themes: [1] perceptions of pregnancy and childbirth; [2] influence of sociocultural context and care experiences; [3] resource availability and access; [4] perceptions of quality of care. Key barriers to facility-based delivery include traditional and familial influences, distance to the facility, cost of delivery, and low perceived quality of care and fear of discrimination during facility-based delivery. The emphasis placed on increasing facility-based deliveries by public health entities has led women and their families to believe that childbirth has become medicalized and dehumanized. When faced with the prospect of facility birth, women in low- and middle-income countries may fear various undesirable procedures, and may prefer to deliver at home with a traditional birth attendant. Given the abundant reports of disrespectful and abusive obstetric care highlighted by this synthesis, future research should focus on achieving respectful, non-abusive, and high-quality obstetric care for all women. Funding provided by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization.
    Reproductive Health 09/2014; 11(71). · 1.62 Impact Factor


Available from
May 23, 2014