Skip to main content

Table 5 Predictors of maternal and neonatal health service utilization: Malawi, 2012

From: Is quality of care a key predictor of perinatal health care utilization and patient satisfaction in Malawi?

Characteristics

Health service utilization (no = ref) -- OR (95% CI)

Family planning

Antenatal care initiation in 1st trimester

Delivery care

Postnatal care

Ever use

Current use

Socio-demographic

 Parity (3–4 = ref)

     

 1

0.22 (0.15, 0.32)

1.00 (0.74, 1.36)

1.15 (0.77, 1.70)

13.01 (1.71, 78.76)

1.04 (0.73, 1.47)

 2

0.61 (0.41, 0.92)

1.07 (0.77, 1.47)

1.10 (0.73, 1.64)

0.70 (0.31, 1.54)

1.47 (1.00, 2.18)

 ≥5

1.02 (0.65, 1.61)

1.13 (0.81, 1.58)

0.69 (0.43, 1.09)

0.94 (0.39, 2.25)

1.14 (0.78, 1.65)

Religion (Other Christian = ref)

 Catholic

0.83 (0.60, 1.16)

0.94 (0.71, 1.24)

0.82 (0.56, 1.21)

0.93 (0.40, 2.19)

0.86 (0.62, 1.19)

 Presbyterian

0.97 (0.63, 1.50)

0.74 (0.52, 1.05)

1.21 (0.79, 1.85)

0.66 (0.25, 1.76)

0.83 (0.55, 1.24)

 Other

1.01 (0.54, 1.88)

0.61 (0.34, 1.10)

0.70 (0.31, 1.55)

0.83 (0.18, 3.80)

0.72 (0.38, 1.35)

 Ngoni ethnicity (no = ref)

0.75 (0.48, 1.19)

0.85 (0.59, 1.25)

0.70 (0.45, 1.09)

0.76 (0.22, 2.62)

0.61 (0.37, 0.99)

 Married/living together (unmarried/divorced/widowed = ref)

3.85 (2.64, 5.61)

3.86 (2.58, 5.78)

1.27 (0.76, 2.11)

1.09 (0.39, 3.09)

1.12 (0.73, 1.71)

Reading level (reads the entire sentence = ref)

 Cannot read simple sentence

0.63 (0.46, 0.86)

0.78 (0.60, 1.02)

1.47 (1.05, 2.07)

1.24 (0.59, 2.62)

0.93 (0.69, 1.25)

 Reads part of sentence

1.74 (1.06, 2.87)

1.15 (0.80, 1.66)

1.10 (0.68, 1.78)

6.94 (0.95, 50.68)

1.13 (0.73, 1.75)

Household wealth (5th/richest = ref)

 1st (poorest)

0.89 (0.55, 1.45)

0.69 (0.45, 1.04)

0.79 (0.46, 1.37)

0.16 (0.03, 0.80)

0.78 (0.48, 1.25)

 2nd

0.94 (0.62, 1.44)

0.77 (0.55, 1.09)

1.02 (0.65, 1.59)

0.18 (0.04, 0.84)

0.64 (0.44, 0.95)

 3rd

1.04 (0.67, 1.62)

0.84 (0.59, 1.20)

1.01 (0.63, 1.61)

0.15 (0.03, 0.72)

0.86 (0.56, 1.32)

 4th

1.02 (0.66, 1.59)

0.89 (0.62, 1.28)

1.00 (0.62, 1.60)

0.23 (0.05, 1.19)

0.93 (0.60, 1.44)

Closest facility to the woman’s residence

 Perception that staff provides high quality services (no = ref)

1.00 (0.60, 1.68)

1.18 (0.79, 1.77)

1.34 (0.75, 2.39)

2.04 (0.78, 5.29)

1.54 (0.98, 2.43)

 Perception that staff ensures patients’ privacy (no = ref)

1.38 (0.79, 2.43)

1.35 (0.82, 2.22)

0.72 (0.39, 1.34)

0.53 (0.12, 2.42)

1.43 (0.80, 2.58)

 Perception that provider(s) is always available (no = ref)

0.88 (0.52, 1.47)

1.01 (0.64, 1.58)

0.88 (0.51, 1.52)

1.65(0.52, 5.26)

0.67 (0.40, 1.12)

 Perception that facility is clean (no = ref)

0.78 (0.32, 1.88)

1.00 (0.51, 1.94)

2.45 (0.84, 7.11)

n/a

1.24 (0.58, 2.65)

 Perception that unmarried women can access FP services

1.31 (0.97, 1.77)

1.27 (0.99, 1.62)

   

Time to reach closest facility (1–2 h = ref)

     

<30 min

1.54 (1.00, 2.36)

1.25 (0.87, 1.80)

0.84 (0.53, 1.36)

1.39 (0.37, 5.31)

2.18 (1.34, 3.55)

30–59 min

1.17 (0.84, 1.64)

1.29 (0.97, 1.71)

0.86 (0.60, 1.23)

1.10 (0.49, 2.49)

1.10 (0.80, 1.52)

>2 h

0.96 (0.64, 1.45)

1.01 (0.73, 1.41)

0.60 (0.38, 0.97)

0.75 (0.30, 1.86)

0.74 (0.51, 1.08)

  1. Notes: Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for all factors shown and for the complex survey design; bolded figures are statistically significant at p < 0.05; figures shown in italics are statistically significant at p < 0.10; n/a, covariate predicted outcome perfectly and was dropped from model