Barriers and facilitators to the utilization of facility births during a national health system strengthening initiative: A mixed-methods assessment from rural Guinea-Bissau

Sabine Margarete Damerow , Helquizine da Goia Mendes Lopes , Giuliano Russo , Morten Skovdal , Jane Brandt Sørensen , Ane Bærent Fisker
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to the utilization of facility births during a national health system strengthening initiative: A mixed-methods assessment from rural Guinea-Bissau","authors":"Sabine Margarete Damerow ,&nbsp;Helquizine da Goia Mendes Lopes ,&nbsp;Giuliano Russo ,&nbsp;Morten Skovdal ,&nbsp;Jane Brandt Sørensen ,&nbsp;Ane Bærent Fisker","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmhs.2024.100015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is growing focus on improving maternal-perinatal survival through health system strengthening (HSS). Despite such efforts, facility birth coverage often remains low in low-income settings. We explored factors influencing facility birth utilization during a national HSS initiative in rural Guinea-Bissau.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach nested in the Bandim Health Project’s rural Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS), we conducted 258 structured and 12 in-depth interviews with women who had recently given birth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic network analysis guided by theories of social practice.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>In the structured interviews, most women reported that they had planned a facility birth (171/258, 66 %), and 28 % reported access barriers (73/258). However, only half of the interviewed women actually gave birth at a health facility (128/258, 50 %), suggesting that facility births frequently remained unattainable. In the in-depth interviews, women described multiple “prerequisites” that needed to be met to access facility births such as financial means for out-of-pocket payments (OOPs). Despite official user fee waivers, OOPs were reported by 71 % of the structured-interview participants with facility births (91/128) but only three of these women referred to OOPs as barriers.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings suggest that the women do not feel entitled to free-of-charge facility births, which may explain underreporting of financial barriers. Ubiquitous OOPs are further suggestive of ‘commodification’ of facility births, such that individual ability to pay remains key to utilization. Our findings raise equity concerns and call for closer monitoring of the implementation of HSS initiatives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101183,"journal":{"name":"SSM - Health Systems","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100015"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949856224000084/pdfft?md5=cd14bb65b92e4a8c2d3897a87864d446&pid=1-s2.0-S2949856224000084-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM - Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949856224000084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is growing focus on improving maternal-perinatal survival through health system strengthening (HSS). Despite such efforts, facility birth coverage often remains low in low-income settings. We explored factors influencing facility birth utilization during a national HSS initiative in rural Guinea-Bissau.

Methods

Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach nested in the Bandim Health Project’s rural Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS), we conducted 258 structured and 12 in-depth interviews with women who had recently given birth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic network analysis guided by theories of social practice.

Findings

In the structured interviews, most women reported that they had planned a facility birth (171/258, 66 %), and 28 % reported access barriers (73/258). However, only half of the interviewed women actually gave birth at a health facility (128/258, 50 %), suggesting that facility births frequently remained unattainable. In the in-depth interviews, women described multiple “prerequisites” that needed to be met to access facility births such as financial means for out-of-pocket payments (OOPs). Despite official user fee waivers, OOPs were reported by 71 % of the structured-interview participants with facility births (91/128) but only three of these women referred to OOPs as barriers.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the women do not feel entitled to free-of-charge facility births, which may explain underreporting of financial barriers. Ubiquitous OOPs are further suggestive of ‘commodification’ of facility births, such that individual ability to pay remains key to utilization. Our findings raise equity concerns and call for closer monitoring of the implementation of HSS initiatives.

在国家卫生系统强化措施期间利用设施分娩的障碍和促进因素:几内亚比绍农村地区的混合方法评估
背景通过加强卫生系统(HSS)提高孕产妇-围产期存活率日益受到重视。尽管做出了这些努力,但在低收入环境中,设施接生的覆盖率往往仍然很低。我们探讨了在几内亚比绍农村地区开展的国家卫生系统强化计划中,影响设施接生利用率的因素。方法我们采用一种解释性顺序混合方法,嵌套于 Bandim 卫生项目的农村卫生和人口监测系统(HDSS)中,对最近分娩的妇女进行了 258 次结构性访谈和 12 次深入访谈。在结构化访谈中,大多数妇女称她们计划在医疗机构分娩(171/258,66%),28%的妇女称在医疗机构分娩存在障碍(73/258)。然而,只有一半的受访妇女实际在医疗机构分娩(128/258,50%),这表明医疗机构分娩常常无法实现。在深入访谈中,妇女们描述了在医疗机构分娩需要满足的多种 "先决条件",如自付费用(OOPs)的经济能力。尽管官方免除了使用费,但 71% 的结构化访谈参与者(91/128)仍报告了自付费用,但其中只有 3 名妇女将自付费用视为障碍。无处不在的自费项目进一步表明了医疗机构分娩的 "商品化",因此个人支付能力仍然是使用医疗机构分娩的关键。我们的研究结果引起了人们对公平问题的关注,并呼吁对人力社保计划的实施进行更密切的监督。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信