Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33549089›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Examining barriers to healthcare access and utilization of antenatal care services: evidence from demographic health surveys in sub-Saharan Africa.

Bright Opoku Ahinkorah, Edward Kwabena Ameyaw, Abdul-Aziz Seidu, Emmanuel Kolawole Odusina, Mpho Keetile, Sanni Yaya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Bright Opoku AhinkorahSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Edward Kwabena AmeyawSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abdul-Aziz SeiduDepartment of Population and Health, College of Humanities and Legal Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Emmanuel Kolawole OdusinaDepartment of Demography and Social Statistics, Federal University, Oye, Ekiti, Nigeria.
Mpho KeetilePopulation Studies and Demography, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.
Sanni YayaSchool of International Development and Global Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada. sanni.yaya@uOttawa.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4876-6043
University of Technology Sydney · AUFederal University Oye Ekiti · NGUniversity of Botswana · BWUniversity of Cape Coast · GHUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal care utilization is one of the means for reducing the high maternal mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa. This study examined the association between barriers to healthcare access and implementation of the 2016 WHO antenatal care services model among pregnant women seeking antenatal care in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

methodsThis study considered only Demographic and Health Survey data collected in 2018 in sub-Saharan Africa. Hence, the Demographic and Health Survey data of four countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria, Mali, Guinea and Zambia) were used. A sample of 6761 from Nigeria, 1973 from Mali, 1690 from Guinea and 1570 from Zambia was considered. Antenatal care visits, categorized as < 8 visits or ≥8 visits, and time of the first antenatal care visit, categorized as ≤3 months or > 3 months (as per the WHO recommendations) were the outcome variables for this study. Both descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Crude odds ratios (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and p-values < 0.05 were used for the interpretation of results.

resultsWith timing of antenatal care visits, getting money needed for treatment (aOR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.03-1.92) influenced early timing of antenatal care visits in Mali whereas getting permission to visit the health facility (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.15-2.33) motivated women to have early timing of antenatal care visits in Guinea. We found that women who considered getting money needed for treatment as not a big problem in Nigeria were more likely to have the recommended number of antenatal care visits (aOR = 1.38, 95% CI= 1.11-1.73). On the contrary, in Guinea, Zambia and Mali, getting permission to visit health facilities, getting money for treatment, distance to the health facility and not wanting to go alone were not barriers to having ≥ 8 antenatal care visits.

conclusionOur study has emphasized the role played by barriers to healthcare access in antenatal care utilization across sub-Saharan African countries. There is the need for governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure that policies geared towards improving the quality of antenatal care and promoting good interaction between health care seekers and health care providers are integrated within the health system.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityPrenatal CareFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaliNigeriaPregnancyZambiaAccessAntenatal careDisparitiesHealth careHealth servicesInequalitiesSub-Saharan Africa; Global Health; public healthUtilization

Identifiers

PMID33549089
PMCPMC7866461
OpenAlexW3128645246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.