Objective: To identify factors associated with delivery outside a health facility in rural Malawi. Method: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Balaka, Dedza, Mchinji and Ntcheu districts in Malawi in 2013 among women who had completed a pregnancy 12 months prior to the day of the survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with delivery outside a facility. Results: Of the 1812 study respondents, 9% (n = 159) reported to have delivered outside a facility. Unmarried women were significantly more likely [OR = 1.88; 95% CI (1.086-3.173)] to deliver outside a facility, while women from households with higher socio-economic status [third-quartile OR = 0.51; 95% CI (0.28-0.95) and fourth-quartile OR = 0.48; 95% CI (0.29-0.79)] and in urban areas [OR = 0.39; 95%-CI (0.23-0.67)] were significantly less likely to deliver outside a facility. Women without formal education [OR 1.43; 95% CI (0.96-2.14)] and multigravidae [OR = 1.14; 95% CI (0.98-1.73)] were more likely to deliver outside a health facility at 10% level of significance. Conclusion: About 9% of women deliver outside a facility. Policies to encourage facility delivery should not only focus on health systems but also be multisectoral to address women’s vulnerability and inequality. Facility-based delivery can contribute to curbing the high maternal illness burden if authorities provide incentives to those not delivering at the facility without losing existing users.
The study was conducted in 2013 in four districts in Malawi: Balaka in the southern region and Dedza, Mchinji and Ntcheu in the central region. These districts have a total population of about 2 million, of which 52% are women. The average population growth rate is 3.48% [33] and the total fertility rate for Malawi as a nation is 5.7 [11]. The four districts count a total of 33 facilities officially offering BEmOC and CEmOC services. Our study focused on these four districts given that the first results-based financing (RBF) initiative in the country is being piloted there. Data were collected through a cross-sectional household survey conducted between April and May 2013, which served as the baseline survey for a larger impact evaluation targeting the RBF initiative mentioned above [34]. The survey sample was selected using a three-stage cluster sampling procedure. First, 33 clusters were defined as the catchment areas of the 33 healthcare facilities that are authorised to provide EmOC services. Second, two enumeration areas (EAs) and four EAs were randomly sampled within each BEmOC and each CEmOC catchment area (i.e. cluster), respectively. The enumeration areas used in this study are the administrative data collection units demarcated by the National Statistics Office [11] and count roughly 500 households with between 1000 and 2000 people [33,35]. Twice as many EAs were selected from the CEmOC as compared to the BEmOC clusters to account for a larger catchment population and potential urban–rural differences. Third, in each EA, we aimed to reach a total of 26 women who had completed a pregnancy (either through miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth or delivery of a live baby) in the previous 12 months. We identified the women to be interviewed using a random route approach [36], purposely independent of any support from village leaders or healthcare providers. After randomly identifying one point in each EA (not the central point), our interviewers randomly selected a path (random route), followed it and stopped at every household on that path to enquire whether any woman in the household had completed a pregnancy in the previous 12 months. Every time such a woman was found, the interviewers explained the aim of the study and asked for consent to proceed with the interview. The process of data collection was continued until at least 26 eligible women were identified and interviewed in each EA. Data were collected by trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire that was digitally programmed and administered using tablet computers. The questionnaire was administered in Chichewa, the local language, and prompted women to recall the type of healthcare services sought during the most recently ended pregnancy, including antenatal care (ANC), delivery and postnatal care (PNC), as well as the relevant out-of-pocket expenditure. In addition, questions were asked to define the women’s socio-demographic and socio-economic profile. The information reported on health service utilisation was systematically validated using the information recorded in the mothers’ health booklet (i.e. health passport) [18]. All data reported in this study were collected after the woman was duly and thoroughly informed of the study’s purpose and signed a written consent was obtained. The study protocol was approved by the College of Medicine Review and Ethics Committee, Malawi (protocol number P.08/13/1438) and the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Heidelberg (protocol number S-256/2012). Access to and utilisation of facility-based delivery represent multidimensional concepts as they depend on the interaction between the individual, her household, and the surrounding community and healthcare system [37]. The utilisation of any health service, including labour and delivery services, can be explained by Andersen’s behavioural model [38–41], which recognises healthcare utilisation as the result of the interaction between predisposing factors (such as age, income, parity and health beliefs), enabling resources (community and family resources), need (perceived and actual) and supply-side characteristics (organization of health system) [38]. We collected data on predisposing, enabling, and need factors and not on supply-side characteristics because this was a household survey. The choice of variables used in our study is based on the different dimensions outlined by Andersen’s model. In addition to other data, Table Table11 lists all the variables included in our analysis. Most of the variables included in the analysis are self-explanatory. We defined the outcome variable as binary, distinguishing women who delivered at a facility (coded as 0) from women who delivered elsewhere, most frequently at home (coded as 1). A woman was classified as having had a facility-based-delivery if she delivered in a regional hospital, district hospital or health centre. A woman was classified as having had a delivery outside a health facility if she delivered at home, at the premises of a TBA or on the way to a health facility. Thus, a facility in the study was defined as an institution, whether public or private, where delivery and birth took place in the presence of a skilled attendant, usually a trained midwife. Socio-economic status was defined by a relative index of household wealth computed by aggregating a household assets profile using principal components analysis [42,43]. The components of the household profile included in the index were as follows: house ownership; characteristics of house of residence such as number of rooms, type of wall, roofing material, floor material, dominant source of lighting and water, and type of toilet owned by household; household assets ownership such as radio, television, phone and bicycle; and ownership of agricultural assets such as farmland, goats, sheep, pigs and poultry. Distance to healthcare facilities was measured in kilometres and calculated as a straight line from the household compound to the relevant referral healthcare facility using global position system (GPS) coordinates [44]. Variable distribution and Unadjusted Odds Ratios (n = 1812) Data analysis was conducted using Stata IC 13 (StataCorp LP, Texas, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to assess the general distribution of the variables in the sample and to provide an initial comparison between women delivering at a facility and women delivering elsewhere. Frequency distributions and chi-square tests of independence were computed for categorical variables, while means, standard deviations and t-tests were computed for continuous variables [45,46]. Given the binary nature of the outcome variables, a multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify factors that were associated with non-facility-based delivery. Multilevel modelling was used to account for clustering at the level of the facility catchment area. The statistical significance of the fixed parameters was tested using a Wald 95% confidence interval [47]. Model identification of the regression was conducted using a step-up approach by means of a likelihood ratio test of goodness of fit [48]. At first, a simple logistic model with only the intercept was run. Then, one explanatory variable was added to the model. The models were tested to assess whether the model with the intercept only is nested within the model with the additional variable using the likelihood ratio test. Thus, the model with the additional variable was tested to assess whether it had a superior explanatory power than the model without the additional variable. If the test indicated that the model was not nested, another variable was added to the model with the intercept and the test was repeated. If the model with the intercept was found to be nested in the model with the additional variable, then this new model was taken to be superior to the one with only the intercept. This procedure was repeated until all the variables were entered into the model and tested to examine whether they improved the explanatory power of the model.
N/A