Introduction: World Health Organization estimates that the appropriate caesarean section rates should range from 10% to 15% at the population level. There is limited access and utilisation of caesarean section services in Uganda. This case-control study explored factors associated with caesarean section delivery, focusing on service-related and individual level factors. Methods: we interviewed 134 cases that had a caesarean section and 134 controls that had a “normal” vaginal delivery. The study was conducted at health facilities in Kabarole district during March to May 2016. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine individual factors associated with caesarean sections, at a significance level of p 35 years) compared to the controls. The factors associated with caesarean section delivery were: having a previous caesarean section delivery (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 4.5 CI: 2.22-9.0), attendance of four or more ANC visits (AOR: 2.0 CI: 1.04-3.83). Inadequate human resource, medicines and supplies affected access to the service. Misconceptions such as negative branding of women that have caesarean section deliveries as “lazy” reduced its acceptance thus low utilisation of the service. Conclusion: health system inadequacies and misconceptions about caesarean section delivery contributed to the low access and utilisation of the service.
Study design and setting: We conducted a case-control study at health facilities in Kabarole district, Western Uganda, during a 3 month period from March through May 2016. Caesarean section services in the district are offered only at the regional referral hospital and at two health centres in the public sector. While in the private sector, the service is offered at three hospitals. In our study, we included all the three public health facilities that provide caesarean section service and two randomly selected private facilities. Case-control definition: We defined a case as having a caesarean section delivery at the selected health facilities during March, April and May 2016. Controls were women that had a “normal” vaginal delivery at the same health facilities as the cases during the study period. A normal delivery was defined as a spontaneous vaginal delivery without the aid of instrument such as forceps or vacuum extraction. We excluded individuals who had been referred from neighbouring districts in both the case group and control group to avoid selection bias. Sample size calculation and sample selection: A two-stage sampling method was used in this study. At the first stage, we determined the sample size using James Schlesselman’s formula for unmatched case-control [20]. The odds ratio associated with exposure that would have sufficient public health importance was hypothesized at 2, using 95% confidence interval and power of 80% a sample size of 134 in the case group and 134 in the control group calculated. At the second stage of sampling, we purposefully included all the three public health facilities that provide caesarean section service in the district and also randomly sampled two private health facilities. We used probability proportionate to sample size sampling (PPS), to distribute the total sample size of 268 amongst the five-selected health facilities. Using the admission list in the maternity wards, study participants that met the inclusion criteria were consecutively sampled. For every case that was selected, a control was recruited. Key informant selection: We also conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with seven purposively selected key informants. These included doctors, midwives and nurses that provide delivery services at the health facilities visited. District health office leaders that included the District Health Officer (DHO) and district in-charge for maternal and child health were also interviewed. Variables: We assessed individual, maternal and health service related factors. Socio-demographic factors included maternal age, education level, marital status, employment status and socio-economic status. Factors related to maternal obstetric and health conditions were parity, multiple births, pre-existing medical conditions and previous caesarean section. Health services related factors were the distance to health facilities measured using geographical distance in kilometres from a place of residence to a health facility, prenatal care consultations (ANC), availability of health infrastructure, human resources, drugs and supplies. Data sources, measurement and quality control: Data were collected in the same way for individuals in the case and control groups. Socio-demographic and maternal information was obtained using face-to-face interviews aided by pre-coded, structured pre-tested questionnaires. Key informant (KI) interviews were also conducted on selected health workers aided by KI guides. The research team made daily visits to the hospitals and health centres to identify women that met the inclusion criteria. The interviews were conducted by trained research assistants with a medical background and fluent in the local languages spoken in the study area. Transcribed interviews were compared against recorded interviews to ensure the quality of qualitative data analysed. Data analysis: After descriptive statistical analysis, bivariable and multivariable analyses were conducted using logistic regression at a significance level of 0.05. We conducted the analysis using STATA statistical package version 12. Crude odds ratios (COR) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were obtained with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Covariates that were significant at the bivariable level, with a p-value of less than 0.2 and those determined from literature to be associated with caesarean section were entered in the multivariable stepwise (backward and forward) logistic regression model. Hosmer and Lemeshow’s goodness of fit was applied to test the quality model. Previous caesarean section was the most significant variable in the model and was hence taken as the main predictor of caesarean section delivery. Interaction and confounding were tested with the main predictor (i.e. previous caesarean section) using stratified analysis. Confounding was further assessed by comparing the crude odds ratio with the adjusted odds ratio obtained using the Mantel Haenszel. A difference between crude and adjusted odds ratios greater than 10% showed a presence of confounding. Key informant recordings were transcribed and transcripts were uploaded into the qualitative analysis software MAXQDA version 12 and we analysed the data following the six steps of the thematic approach developed by Braun and Clarke [21]. Ethical approval: We sought ethical approval from the higher degrees research and ethics committee of the Makerere university school of public health, the District Health Officer (DHO) as well as managers of the respective health facilities where the research was conducted. Interviews were conducted after a written informed consent was obtained from the study participants.
N/A