Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733151›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Factors associated with utilization of quality antenatal care: a secondary data analysis of Rwandan Demographic Health Survey 2020.

Quraish Sserwanja, Lilian Nuwabaine, Ghislaine Gatasi, Julius N Wandabwa, Milton W Musaba

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
17.5field-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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Trends and inequalities in adequate antenatal care coverage among women in Sierra Leone, 2008-2019.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Quraish SserwanjaProgrammes Department, GOAL, Arkaweet Block 65 House No. 227, Khartoum, Sudan. qura661@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0576-4627
Lilian NuwabaineSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Aga Khan University, Kampala, Uganda.
Ghislaine GatasiKey Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu Province, China.
Julius N WandabwaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Busitema University/ Mbale Regional Referral and Teaching Hospital, Mbale, Uganda.
Milton W MusabaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Busitema University/ Mbale Regional Referral and Teaching Hospital, Mbale, Uganda.
Mbale Hospital · UGNile Valley University · SDSoutheast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade, progress in reducing maternal mortality in Rwanda has been slow, from 210 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015 to 203 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020. Access to quality antenatal care (ANC) can substantially reduce maternal and newborn mortality. Several studies have investigated factors that influence the use of ANC, but information on its quality is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the determinants of quality antenatal care among pregnant women in Rwanda using a nationally representative sample.

methodsWe analyzed secondary data of 6,302 women aged 15-49 years who had given birth five years prior the survey from the Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey (RDHS) of 2020 data. Multistage sampling was used to select RDHS participants. Good quality was considered as having utilized all the ANC components. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to explore the associated factors using SPSS version 25.

resultsOut of the 6,302 women, 825 (13.1%, 95% CI: 12.4-14.1) utilized all the ANC indicators of good quality ANC); 3,696 (60%, 95% CI: 58.6-61.1) initiated ANC within the first trimester, 2,975 (47.2%, 95% CI: 46.1-48.6) had 4 or more ANC contacts, 16 (0.3%, 95% CI: 0.1-0.4) had 8 or more ANC contacts. Exposure to newspapers/magazines at least once a week (aOR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.09-2.02), lower parity (para1: aOR 6.04, 95% CI: 3.82-9.57) and having been visited by a field worker (aOR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.23-1.76) were associated with more odds of receiving all ANC components. In addition, belonging to smaller households (aOR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10-1.63), initiating ANC in the first trimester (aOR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.18-1.79) and having had 4 or more ANC contacts (aOR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.25-1.85) were associated with more odds of receiving all ANC components. Working women had lower odds of receiving all ANC components (aOR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.95).

conclusionThe utilization of ANC components (13.1%) is low with components such as having at least two tetanus injections (33.6%) and receiving drugs for intestinal parasites (43%) being highly underutilized. Therefore, programs aimed at increasing utilization of ANC components need to prioritize high parity and working women residing in larger households. Promoting use of field health workers, timely initiation and increased frequency of ANC might enhance the quality of care.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisPrenatal CareFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyQuality of Health CareRwandaAntenatal CareDHSQualityRwandaWomen

Identifiers

PMID35733151
PMCPMC9217119
OpenAlexW4283326405

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.