ArticleMidwifery2022
Direct and opportunity costs related to utilizing maternity waiting homes in rural Zambia.
Article in Midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Provider and client perspectives on the use of maternity waiting homes in rural Rwanda.Global health action · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the direct and opportunity costs involved in utilising maternity waiting homes.
methodA cross-sectional admission survey administered to women who used ten maternity waiting homes across two rural districts in Zambia. A total of 3,796 women participated in the survey. Descriptive analysis was conducted on three domains of the data: demographic characteristics of women, direct costs, and opportunity costs.
findingsWaiting to deliver (86.3%), safe birth (70.8%), and distance (56.0%) were the most frequent reasons women reported for using a maternity waiting home. In terms of direct costs, roughly 65% of the women brought seven days or fewer days' worth of food to the maternity waiting homes, with salt, mealie meals, and vegetables being the most frequently brought items. Only 5.8% of the women spent money on transport. More than half of the women reported paying user fees that ranged from 1 to 5 or more kwacha (US$0.10- 0.52). In terms of opportunity costs, 52% of the women participated in some form of income generating activities (IGAs) when at home. Approximately 35% of the women reported they lost earned income (1 to 50 or more kwacha) by staying at a maternity waiting home.
conclusionA large proportion of women paid for food and user fees to access a maternity waiting home, while a low number of women paid for transport. Even though it is difficult to assign monetary value to women's household chores, being away from these responsibilities and the potential loss of earned income appear to remain a cost to accessing maternity waiting homes. More research is needed to understand how to overcome these financial constraints and assist women in utilising a maternity waiting home.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.