Exploring the first delay: a qualitative study of home deliveries in Makwanpur district Nepal

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

David Osrin¹  Anthony Costello¹  Dharma Manandhar²  Kirti Tumbahangphe²  Bharat Budhathoki²  Machhindra Basnet²  Rita Thapa²  Joanna Morrison¹ 

[1] Institute of Global Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK;MIRA, PO Box 921, Thapathali, Kathmandu, Nepal

关键词: Delay;    Newborn;    Maternal;    Context;    Formative;   

Others  :  1127529
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-89

 received in 2013-08-05, accepted in 2014-02-20,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In many low-income countries women tend to deliver at home, and delays in receiving appropriate maternal care can be fatal. A contextual understanding of these delays is important if countries are to meet development targets for maternal health. We present qualitative research with women who delivered at home in rural Nepal, to gain a contemporary understanding of the context where we are testing the effectiveness of an intervention to increase institutional deliveries.

Methods

We purposively sampled women who had recently delivered at home and interviewed them to explore their reasons for home delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic content analysis. We used the ‘delays’ model discussed in the literature to frame our analysis.

Results

Usually a combination of factors prevented women from delivering in health institutions. Many women were aware of the benefits of institutional delivery yet their status in the home restricted their access to health facilities. Often they did not wish to bring shame on their family by going against their wishes, or through showing their body in a health institution. They often felt unable to demand the organisation of transportation because this may cause financial problems for their family. Some felt that government incentives were insufficient. Often, a lack of family support at the time of delivery meant that women delivered at home. Past bad experience, and poor quality health services, also prevented women from having an institutional delivery.

Conclusions

Formative research is important to develop an understanding of local context. Sociocultural issues, perceived accessibility of health services, and perceived quality of care were all important barriers preventing institutional delivery. Targeting one factor alone may not be effective in increasing institutional deliveries. Our intervention encourages communities to develop local responses to address the factors preventing institutional delivery through women’s groups and improved health facility management. We will monitor perceptions of health services over time to help us understand the effectiveness of the intervention.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Morrison et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, Bank W: Trends In Maternal Mortality: 1990–2010. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
• [2]Bhutta ZA, Chopra M, Axelson H, Berman P, Boerma T, Bryce J, Bustreo F, Cavagnero E, Cometto G, Daelmans B, De Francisco A, Fogstad H, Gupta N, Laski L, Lawn JE, Maliqi B, Mason E, Pitt C, Requejo J, Starrs A, Victora C, Wardlaw T: Countdown to 2015 decade report (2000-10): taking stock of maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet 2010, 375:2032-2044.
• [3]Thaddeus S, Maine D: Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med 1994, 38:1091-1110.
• [4]Ministry of Health and Population: Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. Kathmandu: Population Division, Ministry of Health and Population, Government of Nepal, New Era and ICF International; 2011.
• [5]Ensor T, Cooper S: Overcoming barriers to health service access: influencing the demand side. Health Policy Plan 2004, 19(2):69-79.
• [6]Ministry of Health and Population: The Aama programme: an initiative towards reducing maternal and newborn deaths in Nepal. Kathmandu: Ministry of Health and Population, Support to the Safe Motherhood Programme; 2010.
• [7]Witter S, Khadka S, Nath H, Tiwari S: The national free delivery policy in Nepal:early evidence of its effects on health facilities. Health Policy Plan 2011, 26:ii84-ii91.
• [8]Powell-Jackson T, Tiwari S, Neupane B, Singh M: An Early Evaluation of the Aama Programme. Support to Safe Motherhood Programme: Kathmandu; 2010.
• [9]Morrison J, Tumbahangphe K, Budhathoki B, Neupane R, Sen A, Dahal K, Thapa R, Manandhar R, Manandhar D, Costello A, Osrin D: Community mobilisation and health management committee strengthening to increase birth attendance by trained health workers in rural Makwanpur, Nepal: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials 2011, 12.
• [10]Rifkin S, Pridmore P: Partners in Planning. London: Macmillan education limited; 2001.
• [11]Panter-Brick C, Clarke S, Lomas H, Pinder M, Lindsay S: Culturally compelling strategies for behaviour change: a social ecology model and case study in malaria preventions. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:2810-2825.
• [12]Rosato M: How Does Community Mobilisation Through Maimwana Women’s Groups Work?: Addressing The Social Determinants Of Mother And Child Health Rural Malawi. London: University College London; 2012.
• [13]Rath S, Nair N, Tripathy P, Barnett S, Rath S, Mahapatra R, Gope R, Bajpai A, Sinha R, Costello A, Prost A: Explaining the impact of a women's group led community mobilisation intervention on maternal and newborn health outcomes: the Ekjut trial process evaluation. BMC International health and human rights 2010, 10:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Morrison J, Thapa R, Hartley S, Osrin D, Manandhar M, Tumbahangphe K, Neupane R, Budhathoki B, Sen A, Pace N, Manandhar D, Costello A: Understanding how women's groups improve maternal and newborn health in Makwanpur, Nepal: a qualitative study. Int Health 2010, 2:25-35.
• [15]Neonatal Mortality Formative Research Working Group: Developing community-based intervention strategies to save newborn lives: lessons learned from formative research in five countries. J Perinatol 2008, 28(Suppl 2):S2-8.
• [16]Hawe P, Sheill A, Riley T, Gold L: Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58:788-793.
• [17]Central Bureau of Statistics: National Population and Housing Census 2011. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal; 2012.
• [18]Central Bureau of Statistics: Four-Monthly Statistical Bulletin. vol. 91 edition. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal; 2009.
• [19]District Development Committee: District Development Plan fiscal year 2068/69. Hetauda: District Development Committee, Makwanpur; 2011.
• [20]Dahal K, Manandhar M: Baseline Health Facility Audit Report. MIRA: Hetauda; 2009.
• [21]Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumbahangphe KM, Tamang S, Thapa S, Shrestha D, Thapa B, Shrestha JR, Wade A, Borghi J, Standing H, Manandhar M, Costello AMDL, MIRA Makwanpur Team: Effect of a participatory intervention with women's groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364:970-979.
• [22]Osrin D, Tumbahangphe K, Shrestha D, Mesko N, Shrestha B, Manandhar M, Standing H, Manandhar D, Costello A: Cross sectional, community based study of care of newborn infants in Nepal. Brit Med J 2002, 325:1063-1066.
• [23]Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage Publications; 2005.
• [24]Mesko N, Osrin D, Tamang S, Shrestha B, Manandhar D, Manandhar M, Standing H, Costello A: Care for perinatal illness in rural Nepal: a descriptive study with cross-sectional and qualitative components. BMC Int health hum rights 2003, 3(3):1.
• [25]Tamang S, Mesko N, Shrestha B, Osrin D, Manandhar M, Standing H, Manandhar D, Shrestha J, Costello A: A qualitative description of perinatal care practices in Makwanpur District, Nepal. Contrib Nepal Stud 2001, 28:10-19.
• [26]Bennett L: Dangerous Wives And Sacred Sisters. Kathmandu: Mandala book point; 1983.
• [27]Bennett L, Tamang S, Onta P, Thapa M: Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste, And Ethnic Exclusion In Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department for International Development, The World Bank; 2006.
• [28]Morrison J, Thapa R, Basnet M, Shrestha R, Manandhar M, Sen A, Tumbahangphe K, Osrin D, Manandhar M, Costello A: Evaluating Quality In Peripheral Health Facilities: What Do Health Facility Management Committees And Communities Prioritise In Rural Nepal? Hetauda: MIRA; 2013.
• [29]Upreti S, Baral S, Tiwari S, Elsey H, Aryal S, Tandan M, Aryal Y, Lamichhane P, Lievens T: Rapid Assessment Of The Demand Side Financing Schemes: Aama Programme And 4anc. Kathmandu: Ministry of Health and Population; Nepal Health Sector Support Programme; HERD; 2012.
• [30]Choulagai B, Onta S, Subedi N, Mehata S, Bhandari G, Poudyal A, Shrestha B, Mathai M, Petzoid M, Krettek A: Barriers to using skilled birth attendants’ services in mid and far-western Nepal: a cross sectional study. BMC Int health hum rights 2013., 23(12)
• [31]Acharya L, Cleland J: Maternal and health services in rural Nepal: does access or quality matter more? Health Policy Plan 2000, 15:223-229.
• [32]Ovretveit J, Staines A: Sustained improvement? Findings from an independent case study of the Jonkoping quality program. Qual Manag Health Care 2007, 16:68-83.
• [33]Colbourn T, Nambiar B, Bondo A, Makwenda C, Tsetekani E, Makonda-Ridley A, Msukwa M, Barker P, Kotagal U, Williams W, et al.: Effects of quality improvement in health facilities and community mobilization through women’s groups on maternal, neonatal and perinatal mortality in three districts of Malawi: MaiKhanda, a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Int Health 2013, 5(3):180-195.
• [34]Schouten L, Hulscher M, van Everdingen J, Huijsman R, Grol R: Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic review. Br Med J 2008., 336(14914)
• [35]Franco L, Marquez L: Effectiveness of collaborative improvement: evidence from 27 applications in 12 less-developed and middle-income countries. BMJ Qual Saf Healthc 2011, 20:658-665.
• [36]Srofenyoh E, Ivester T, Engmann C, Olufolabi A, Bookman L, Owen M: Advancing obstetric and neonatal care in a regional hospital in Ghana via continuous quality improvement. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012, 116:17-21.
• [37]Gabrysch S, Campbell O: Still too far to walk: literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009., 9(34)
• [38]Dahal D, Fricke T: Transformations in the culture of childbearing and fertility among Nepal’s Tamang. CNAS 1998, 25:59-77.
• [39]Thapa N: Country Profile Of Excluded Groups In Nepal. Kathmandu; 2009. http://cop.mdgasiapacific.org/files/cop/7/Nepal.pdf webcite
• [40]Shrestha S, Banu B, Khanom K, Ali L, Stray-Pedersen B, Devkota BR: Changing trends on the place of delivery: why to Nepali women give birth at home? Reprod Health 2012., 10
• [41]Pradhan A, Suvedi BK, Sharma SK, Puri M, Poudel P, Chitrakar SR, Pradhan A, Suvedi BK, Sharma SK, Puri M, Poudel P, Chitrakar SR NKC, Hulton L: Nepal Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Study 2008/2009. Kathmandu: Family Health Division, Department of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Population, Government of Nepal; 2010.
• [42]Blanchet T: Meanings And Rituals Of Birth In Rural Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press limited; 1984.
• [43]Head S, Yount K, Sibley L: Delays in recognition of and care-seeking response to prolonged labour in Bangladesh. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72:1157-1168.
• [44]Huque Z, Leppard M, Mavalankar D, Akhter H, Chowdhury T: Safe Motherhood Programmes In Bangladesh. In Safe Motherhood Initiatives: Critical Issues. Edited by Berer M, Ravindran T. Oxford: Blackwell Science LTD; 1999.
• [45]Afsana , Rashid S: The challenges of meeting rural Bangladeshi women’s needs in delivery care. Reprod Health Matters 2001, 9(18):79-89.