Skip to main content

Table 3 Binomial logistic regression for the determinants of utilisation of better technical quality of routine MNH services in Nepal, 2015

From: Utilisation of quality antenatal, delivery and postnatal care services in Nepal: An analysis of Service Provision Assessment

Pregnant women attended HFs for their first ANC visit (N = 523)

Postpartum women discharged from HFs (N = 309)

Determinants

Categories

cOR (95% CI)

aOR (95% CI)

Determinants

Categories

cOR (95% CI)

aOR (95%CI)

Structural

   

Structural

   

 Ethnicity (women)

Brahmin/Chhetri

1.00

 

Ethnicity (women)

Brahmin/Chhetri

1.00

 

Janajatis

0.46(0.22,0.94) *

  

Janajatis

1.07(0.57, 2.03)

 

Madhesi

0.33(0.16,0.69) **

  

Madhesi

0.23(0.10, 0.51) ***

 

Dalit

0.43(0.20,0.94) *

  

Dalit

0.51(0.21, 1.26)

 

Muslims

0.20(0.08,0.53) **

 

Managed by

Public

1.00

1.00

 Education

No schooling

1.00

  

Private

4.64(2.05, 10.48) ***

2.63(1.14, 6.08) *

Up to 10 grades

2.21(1.20,4.08) *

 

Intermediary

   

SLC and above

1.86(0.99,3.50)

 

Province

One

1.00

1.00

 Managed by

Public

1.00

  

Two

0.17(0.04, 0.67) *

0.15(0.03, 0.63) *

Private

0.50(0.28,0.87) *

  

Three

3.03(0.83,11.08)

2.04(0.57, 7.31)

Intermediary

    

Four

1.19(0.29, 4.85)

0.94(0.21, 4.21)

 Province

One

1.00

1.00

 

Five

1.89(0.46, 7.70)

1.58(0.36, 7.00)

Two

0.72(0.26,1.94)

0.52(0.19,1.38)

 

Six

1.71(0.47, 6.20)

2.94(0.68, 12.69)

Three

1.82(0.72,4.60)

2.11(0.84, 5.32)

 

Seven

0.49(0.13, 1.91)

0.59(0.15, 2.33)

Four

4.55(1.58,13.08) **

4.03(1.56, 10.40) **

Women’s age (years)

15–19

1.00

 

Five

2.32(0.88,6.08)

1.60(0.63, 4.04)

 

20–24

0.80(0.39, 1.61)

 

Six

4.01(1.14,14.11) *

3.28(0.90,12.01)

 

25–29

1.73(0.78, 3.86)

 

Seven

3.88(1.43,10.49) **

2.77(0.94, 8.16)

 

≥30

2.67(0.96, 7.38)

 

 Waiting time

Immediately

1.00

 

Delivery Companion

No

1.00

 

Up to 30 min

1.22(0.70,2.10)

  

Yes

0.73(0.39, 1.37)

 

> 30 min

0.98(0.50,1.92)

     

 Region

Terai

1.00

 

Health system

   

Mountain

1.95(0.48,7.89)

 

HF capacity

Low

1.00

 

Hill

1.84(1.08, 3.15) *

  

Medium

0.56(0.23, 1.32)

 

 Women’s age (years)

15–19

1.00

  

High

0.46(0.20, 1.05)

 

20–24

1.42(0.69,2.90)

 

Supervision of staff

No

1.00

 

25–29

1.13(0.58,2.21)

  

Yes

0.33(0.14, 0.78) *

 

≥30

1.14(0.44,2.99)

 

HF Meeting

Never

1.00

 

 Facility types

PHCCs and hospitals

1.00

  

Sometimes

1.06 (0.20, 5.72)

 

HPs and clinics

0.78(0.43, 1.39)

  

Monthly

0.80(0.35, 1.85)

 

Health system

   

Feedback collection

Yes

1.00

 

 HF capacity

Low

1.00

1.00

 

No

0.32(0.16, 0.64) **

 

Medium

2.21 (1.07, 4.56) *

2.12(1.03, 4.35) *

QA activities

No

1.00

 

High

1.41(0.67, 2.97)

1.27(0.55, 2.94)

 

Yes

1.85(0.85, 4.02)

 

 Supervision of staff

No

1.00

 

Aama program

No

1.00

 

Yes

1.79(0.91,3.52)

  

Yes

0.37(0.14, 1.02)

 

 HF meeting

Never

1.00

 

Decision

No

1.00

 

Sometimes

0.74(0.22,2.47)

  

Timely

0.63(0.21, 1.89)

 

Monthly

1.04(0.43,2.53)

 

Providers

Nurse

1.00

 

 Feedback collection

Yes

1.00

  

Doctors

2.26(1.27, 4.04) **

 

No

0.75(0.41,1.37)

     

 Quality assurance

No

1.00

     

Yes

1.04(0.55,1.97)

 

PNC Mothers

Nurses

1.00

 

 Waiting area

No

1.00

  

Doctor

2.44(1.29, 4.62) **

 

Yes

1.39(0.53,3.66)

 

PNC Newborn

Nurses

1.00

1.00

 HWs category

GP/Specialists

1.00

1.00

 

Doctor

2.79(1.44, 5.42) **

2.14(1.13, 4.04) *

MBBS

0.85(0.18,4.07)

1.00 (0.23, 4.35)

First baby

No

1.00

 

Nursing

2.06(1.07,3.94) *

2.89(1.33, 6.29) **

 

Yes

0.88 (0.55, 1.40)

 

Paramedics

0.91(0.21,3.96)

0.89(0.21, 3.74)

Delivery

Normal

1.00

 

 Staff supervision

No

1.00

1.00

 

Assisted

1.88(1.00, 3.52) *

 

Yes

1.71(0.96,3.03)

1.71(1.01,2.92) *

    

 Problem felt (clients)

No

1.00

     

Yes

0.70(0.42,1.14)

     

 Need to pay

Yes

1.00

     

No

1.19 (0.71,1.99)

     
  1. Significance at ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Variables which had p < 0.2 included in the final model for each outcome variable. For each outcome variable, independent binomial logistic regression analysis was consudcted adjusting for covariates listed in the respective column. Goodness of fit test (Hosmer Lemeshow test) for utilisation of technical quality for ANC services (p = 0.896). Goodness of fit test (Hosmer Lemeshow test) for utilisation of technical quality of delivery and PNC services (p = 0.793). These figures show that our models are the best fit.