Objectives: To identify the determinants of antenatal care (ANC) utilisation in sub-Saharan Africa. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Databases searched were PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria: Primary studies reporting on determinants of ANC utilisation following multivariate analysis, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and published in English language between 2008 and 2018. Data extraction and synthesis: A data extraction form was used to extract the following information: name of first author, year of publication, study location, study design, study subjects, sample size and determinants. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol was used to guide the screening and eligibility of the studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the quality of the studies while the Andersen framework was used to report findings. Results: 74 studies that met the inclusion criteria were fully assessed. Most studies identified socioeconomic status, urban residence, older/increasing age, low parity, being educated and having an educated partner, being employed, being married and Christian religion as predictors of ANC attendance and timeliness. Awareness of danger signs, timing and adequate number of antenatal visits, exposure to mass media and good attitude towards ANC utilisation made attendance and initiation of ANC in first trimester more likely. Having an unplanned pregnancy, previous pregnancy complications, poor autonomy, lack of husband’s support, increased distance to health facility, not having health insurance and high cost of services negatively impacted the overall uptake, timing and frequency of antenatal visits. Conclusion: A variety of predisposing, enabling and need factors affect ANC utilisation in sub-Saharan Africa. Intersectoral collaboration to promote female education and empowerment, improve geographical access and strengthened implementation of ANC policies with active community participation are recommended.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol37 was used in screening studies for eligibility (see online supplementary file 1). bmjopen-2019-031890supp001.pdf A systematic review of published quantitative literature was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019 to capture studies published in the last 10 years (2008–2018). The databases searched were PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Other databases searched were Google Scholar and African Journal Online. The search terms used include: antenatal, prenatal, maternal health, maternal care, maternal health services, utilisation, factors, determinants, predictors, Africa. The search strategy and results are provided in online supplementary file 2. bmjopen-2019-031890supp002.pdf Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were quantitative (primary or secondary data used) reporting on factors associated with ANC utilisation following multivariate analysis, conducted in SSA and published between 2008 and 2018. ANC utilisation in this review refers to attendance of at least one and at least four ANC visits and booking visit within the first trimester of pregnancy. Various study designs (longitudinal, cohort, case–control, cross-sectional and experimental) were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the predictors of ANC utilisation. This review excluded articles and studies published before 2008 and written in any language other than English. Studies that used measures other than the WHO recommendation for ANC were excluded. Review articles, case reports, case studies and simple descriptive studies without regression analyses were excluded. At the level of titles, titles that did not address ANC and maternal health/health services utilisation were excluded. At the abstracts stage, studies that did not report factors associated with ANC and qualitative studies were excluded. Full-text quantitative studies that did not report on the determinants of ANC utilisation after multivariable regression analysis such as studies that assessed the predictors of utilisation skilled birth attendance and postnatal care were excluded. Full-text publications that did not employ the WHO definitions for ANC and qualitative were also excluded A data extraction form was developed and reviewed by all reviewers. Screening of titles and abstracts and the full texts was carried out independently by two of the review authors (INOA and ICA). Any disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus between the two review authors or with the help of the third author (OBE). Mendeley reference manager was used to keep track of references. Data were extracted for each paper using standardised forms with the following domains: the name of first author and year of publication, study location and setting, study design, study subjects and sample size and factors/determinants. Figure 1 shows the article selection and inclusion process. Selection and inclusion process for articles included in the review. ANC, antenatal care. Quality assessment of the studies included in this review was carried out by the main reviewer in consultation with the other authors. The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the quality of the studies. This quality assessment tool has been used in other systematic reviews38 39 (see online supplementary file 3). The tool consists of 14 questions assessing different aspects of a study including but not limited to definition of objectives, study population, sampling strategy, sample size and statistical analyses. To appraise a study, each question is scored as Yes (1) or No (0), and others (CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable and NR, not reported). All the studies included in this review were assessed for quality using the appropriate criteria based on study design. Elements of the criteria which did not apply to a particular study were marked as not applicable. bmjopen-2019-031890supp003.pdf All the studies fulfilled the quality criteria except for six studies9 40–44 that did not report on sample size. It was not appropriate or possible to involve patients or the public in this work