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