A systematic review of inequalities in the use of maternal health care in developing countries: examining the scale of the problem and the importance of context
Lale Say, Rosalind Raine
Volume 85, Number 10, October 2007, 812-819
Table 2. Inequalities in the use of medical settings for delivery
| Study | Country | Sample size | Comparison groups | OR(95% CI orsignificance) | Adjusted analysis donea | Qualityb | Contextual issuesc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Addai (1998) |
Ghana |
4562 |
Urban, rural |
1.76 (P < 0.01),1.00 |
+ |
– |
– |
| Bhatia (1995) |
India |
3595 |
Urban, rural |
2.57 (P < 0.01),1.00 |
+ |
+ |
Limited physical access to facilities for rural women. Self-reported hygiene emerged as a significant factor. Increasing importance of private sector due to poor reputation of government hospitals. |
| Bolam (1998) |
Nepal |
334 |
Urban, rural |
0.90 (0.52–1.56), 1.00 |
– |
– |
– |
| Falkingham (2003) |
Tajikistan |
1982 |
Urban, rural |
2.67 (1.76–4.08), 1.00 |
+ |
+ |
Deterioration of economy and health services since independence; rural women disproportionately affected. |
| Gertler (1993) |
Jamaica |
823 |
Urban, rural |
Higher in urban (P < 0.01) |
+ |
++ |
Accessibility (transport, work responsibilities) is limited for poor and rural women, and informal care alternatives exist. Midwives’ advice as to the place of delivery is not followed because of what some subjects call their authoritarian attitudes. |
| Hotchkiss (2003) |
Morocco |
1609 |
Urban, rural |
2.13 (1.21–3.76), 1.00 |
+ |
+ |
Low geographical accessibility and costs of services limited use. Women living in households with another adult woman are more likely to give birth in hospitals because they can get advice and are accompanied to the hospital. |
| Magadi (2000) |
Kenya |
5290 |
Urban, rural |
2.66 (P < 0.05),1.00 |
+ |
– |
– |
| Navaneetham (2002) |
India Andra Pradesh |
1571 |
Urban, rural |
2.21 (P < 0.01),1.00 |
+ |
+ |
Different patterns between states due to differential availability and accessibility of services. General lack of access for socially excluded (caste) communities because of residential segregation and limited availability of services. |
| Karnataka |
1925 |
2.41 (P < 0.01),1.00 |
|||||
| Kerala |
1101 |
1.65 (NS),1.00 |
|||||
| Tamil Nadu |
1416 |
3.64 (P < 0.01),1.00 |
|||||
| Stupp (1994) |
Belize |
977 |
Urban, rural |
7.14 (P < 0.001),1.00 |
+ |
– |
– |
| Tsui (2002) | Paraguay |
722 |
Urban, rural |
NS |
+ |
– |
– |
| Uganda |
1224 |
Higher in urban (P < 0.10) |
|||||
| United Republic of Tanzania |
4055 |
Higher in urban (P < 0.10) |
|||||
| India |
3165 |
NS |
|||||
| Anson (2004) |
China |
4273 |
Continuous |
0.96 (NS) |
+ |
– |
– |
| Barbhuiya (2001) |
Bangladesh |
505 |
Lower, higher |
1.00,2.43 (1.29–4.59) |
– |
– |
– |
| Bhatia (1995) |
India |
3595 |
Low, middle, high |
1.00,1.23 (P < 0.05),1.55 (P < 0.001) |
+ |
+ |
Increasing importance of private sector and decreased functioning of public services. Those who cannot afford private care do not deliver at facilities. Differences by caste show segregation of some groups. |
| Duong (2004) |
Viet Nam |
200 |
Continuous |
NS |
+ |
– |
– |
| Falkingham(2003) |
Tajikistan |
1840 |
Poorest,2nd quintile,3rd quintile,4th quintile,Richest |
NS |
+ |
+ |
Deterioration of economy and health services since independence; quality of care is very low. Women, particularly those who are wealthier, perceive giving birth at home as safer than in hospitals that lack running water or heating. |
| Gertler (1995) |
Jamaica |
823 |
Continuous |
Higher with high (P < 0.01) |
+ |
++ |
Accessibility (transport, work responsibilities) is limited for poor and rural women; informal care alternatives exist. Midwives’ advice as to the place of delivery is not followed because of what some subjects call their authoritarian attitudes. |
| Glei (1999) |
Guatemala |
3253 |
Continuous |
1.00 |
+ |
+ |
Other factors (clinical risk, openness to outside world) in particular cultural differences between ethnic groups (for example, indigenous women prefer traditional midwives because of the social support they provide) determine maternal health-care use. |
| Hodgkin (1996) |
Kenya |
149 |
Continuous |
Higher with high (P < 0.10) |
+ |
– |
– |
| Hotchkiss (2003) |
Morocco |
1609 |
Lower half,higher half |
1.00,2.94 (1.45–6.04) |
+ |
+ |
User fees limit access for poor people. Women living in households with another adult woman are more likely to give birth in hospitals, because they can get advice and are accompanied to the hospital. |
| Kavitha (1997) |
India |
172 |
1000,1001–2000,> 2000 |
NS |
+ |
– |
– |
| Navaneetham (2002) |
India,Andra Pradesh |
1571 |
Low, medium,high |
1.00,1.40 (P < 0.05),3.37 (P < 0.01) |
+ |
+ |
Different patterns between states due to differential availability and accessibility of services. General lack of access for socially excluded communities (caste) due to residential segregation and limited availability of services. |
| Karnataka |
1925 |
1.00,1.72 (P < 0.01),3.61 (P < 0.01) |
|||||
| Kerala |
1101 |
1.00,1.85 (P < 0.01),4.92 (P < 0.05) |
|||||
| Tamil Nadu |
1416 |
1.00,1.33 (P < 0.01),3.91 (P < 0.01) |
|||||
| Toan (1996) |
Viet Nam |
1151 |
Not good,good |
1.00,1.26 (0.97–1.63) |
– |
– |
– |
| Tsui (2002) |
Paraguay |
722 |
Low, medium,high |
Higher in high (P < 0.10) |
+ |
– |
– |
| United Republic of Tanzania |
4055 |
Higher in high (P < 0.10) |
|||||
| India |
3165 |
Higher in high (P < 0.10) |
|||||
| Van der Heuvel (1999) |
Zimbabwe |
235 |
Lower, low,middle |
NS,NS |
+ |
– |
– |
| Wagle (2004) |
Nepal |
308 |
Low, high |
4.4 (1.8–10.6) |
+ |
– |
– |
| Letamo (2003) |
Botswana |
1184 |
Low, medium,high |
4.14 (3.45–4.96),1.28 (1.06–1.54),1.00 |
+ |
– |
– |
| Magadi (2000) | Kenya | 5290 | Low, medium,high | 1.00,0.54 (P < 0.05),0.19 (P < 0.05) | + | – | – |
CI, confidence interval; NS, not significant; OR, odds ratio.a Includes a range of factors related to the individual (e.g. age, marital status, number of children, education, autonomy, health beliefs), community (e.g. type of roads, village) and health service (distance/time to care, availability of doctors), varying across studies.b Indicates how well the study was done to minimize the risk of bias or confounding, and to establish an association between exposure (examined non-clinical factor) and effect (outcome measure). Code: ++ high quality; + moderate quality; – low quality.c Contextual influences that could explain the differences found in studies of moderate and high quality.
