Background

Giving birth in health facilities with skilled birth attendants (SBAs) is one of the key efforts promoted to reduce preventable maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. However, research has revealed large socioeconomic status (SES) disparities in facility-based childbirth. We seek to extend the literature on the factors underlying these SES disparities. Drawing on the Disparities in Skilled Birth Attendance (DiSBA) framework, we examined the contribution of three proximal factors-perceived need, accessibility, and quality of care-that influence the use of SBAs.

Methods

We used data from a survey conducted in Migori County, Kenya in 2016, among women aged 15-49 years who gave birth nine weeks before the survey (N = 1020). The primary outcome is facility-based childbirth. The primary predictors are wealth, measured in quintiles calculated from a wealth index based on principal component analysis of household assets, and highest education level attained. Proposed mediating variables include maternal perceptions of need, accessibility (physical and financial), and quality of care (antenatal services received and experience of care). Logistic regression with mediation analysis was used to investigate the mediating effects.

Results

Overall, 85% of women in the sample gave birth in a health facility. Women in the highest wealth quintile were more likely to give birth in a facility than women in the lowest quintile, controlling for demographic factors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.97, 95% CI: 1.69-5.22). College-educated women were five times more likely than women with no formal education or primary education to give birth in a health facility (aOR: 4.96; 95% CI: 1.43-17.3). Women who gave birth in health facilities had higher perceived accessibility and quality of care than those who gave birth at home. The five mediators were estimated to account for between 15% and 48% of the differences in facility births between women in the lowest and higher wealth quintiles.

Conclusion

Our results confirm SES disparities in facility-based childbirth, with the proximal factors accounting for some of these differences. These proximal factors - particularly perceived accessibility and quality of care - warrant attention due to their relationship with facility-birth overall, and their impact on inequities in this care.

BACKGROUND: Globally, approximately 800 women and 6400 newborns die around the time of childbirth each day. Many of these deaths could be prevented with high-quality emergency obstetric and newborn care (EmONC). The Monitoring Emergency Obstetric Care: A handbook guides strengthening EmONC services. However, the handbook contains limited quality of care measures. Our study identified and prioritised quality of care indicators for potential inclusion in the handbook, which is undergoing revision. METHODS: We conducted a consultative scoping review, mapping, and prioritisation exercise to select a short list of indicators on facility-based maternal and newborn quality of care. Indicators were identified from literature searches and expert suggestions and organised by the categories of structure, process, and outcomes as defined in the World Health Organizations Standards for Improving Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Health Facilities. We focused on process indicators, encompassing the provision of care and experience of care during the intrapartum period, and developed a priority list of indicators using the selection criteria of relevance and feasibility. Experience of care indicators were also mapped against the Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC) scale. RESULTS: We extracted a total of 3023 quality of care indicators. After removing out-of-scope and duplicate indicators and applying our selection criteria, we identified 20 provision of care indicators for possible inclusion in the revised EmONC handbook. We recommend including a score for experience of care that could be measured with the 30-item or the 13-item PCMC scale. We also identified 29 experience of care items not covered by the PCMC scale that could be used. Provider experience, patient safety, and quality of abortion care were identified as areas for which no or few indicators were found through our scoping review. CONCLUSIONS: Through a rigorous, consultative, and multi-step process, we selected a short list of process-related, facility-based quality of care indicators for emergency obstetric and newborn care. This list could be included in the EmONC handbook or used for other monitoring purposes. Country consultations to assess the utility and feasibility of the proposed indicators and their adaptation to local contexts will support their refinement and uptake. REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/msxbd (Open Science Framework).

Background

Although several indicators have been proposed to measure women's experience of care in health facilities during the intrapartum period, it is unknown if these indicators perform differently in the context of obstetric emergencies. We examined the relationship between experience of care indicators from the Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC) scale and obstetric complications.

Methods

We used data from four cross-sectional surveys conducted in Kenya (rural: N = 873; urban: N = 531), Ghana (N = 531), and India (N = 2018) between August 2016 and October 2017. The pooled sample included 3953 women aged 15-49 years who gave birth within 9 weeks prior to the survey. Experience of care was measured using the PCMC scale. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariable analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the composite and 31 individual PCMC indicators with (1) obstetric complications; (2) severity of complications; and (3) delivery by cesarean section (c-section).

Results

16% (632) of women in the pooled sample reported obstetric complications; and 4% (132) reported having given birth via c-Sect. (10.5% among those with complications). The average standardized PCMC scores (range 0-100) were 63.5 (SD = 14.1) for the full scale, 43.2 (SD = 20.6) for communication and autonomy, 67.8 (SD = 14.1) for supportive care, and 80.1 (SD = 18.2) for dignity and respect sub-scales. Women with complications had higher communication and autonomy scores (45.6 [SD = 20.2]) on average compared to those without complications (42.7 [SD = 20.6]) (p < 0.001), but lower supportive care scores, and about the same scores for dignity and respect and for the overall PCMC. 18 out of 31 experience of care indicators showed statistically significant differences by complications, but the magnitudes of the differences were generally small, and the direction of the associations were inconsistent. In general, women who delivered by c-section reported better experiences.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence based on our analysis to suggest that women with obstetric complications report consistently better or worse experiences of care than women without. Women with complications appear to experience better care on some indicators and worse care on others. More studies are needed to understand the relationship between obstetric complications and women's experience of care and to explore why women who deliver by c-section may report better experience of care.