Evaluation of a multi-pronged intervention to improve access to safe abortion care in two districts in Jharkhand

BMC Health Services Research

Janardan Warvadekar²  Sangeeta Batra²  Bela Ganatra¹  Traci L Baird³  Kathryn L Andersen³  Sushanta K Banerjee² 

[1] Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland;Ipas India, E-63 Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, India;Ipas, 300 Market St., Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA

关键词: Evaluation;    India;    Community health workers;    Medical abortion;   

Others  :  1130919
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-227

 received in 2013-09-23, accepted in 2014-05-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Despite the adoption of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1972, access to safe abortion services remains limited in India. Awareness of the legality of abortion also remains low, leading many women to seek services outside the health system. Medical abortion (MA) is an option that has the potential to expand access to safe abortion services. A multi-pronged intervention covering a population of 161,000 in 253 villages in the Silli and Khunti blocks of Jharkhand was conducted between 2007 and 2009, seeking to improve medical abortion services and create awareness at the community level by providing information through community intermediaries and creating an enabling environment through a behavior change communication campaign. The study evaluates the changes in knowledge about abortion-related issues, changes in abortion care-seeking, and service utilization as a result of this intervention.

Methods

A baseline cross-sectional survey was conducted pre-intervention (n = 1,253) followed by an endline survey (n = 1,290) one year after the completion of the intervention phase. In addition, monitoring data from intervention facilities was collected monthly over the study period.

Results

Nearly 85% of respondents reported being exposed to safe abortion messaging as a result of the intervention. Awareness of the legality of abortion increased significantly from 19.7% to 57.6% for women, as did awareness of the specific conditions for which abortion is allowed. Results were similar for men. There was also a significant increase in the proportion of men and women who knew of a legal and safe provider and place from where abortion services could be obtained. Multivariate analysis showed positive associations between exposure to any component of the intervention and increased knowledge about legality and gestational age limits, however only interpersonal communication was associated with a significant increase in knowledge of where to obtain safe services (OR 4.8, SE 0.67). Utilization of safe abortion services, and in particular MA, increased at all intervention sites over the duration of the intervention with a shift towards women seeking care earlier in pregnancy.

Conclusion

The evaluation demonstrates the success of the intervention and its potential for replication in similar contexts within India.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Banerjee et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Registrar General of India: Maternal Mortality in India: 1997 - 2003. In Trends, Causes and Risk Factors. New Delhi: Registrar General of India; 2006.
• [2]Registrar General of India, Vital Statistics Division, Government of India: Distribution of sample maternal deaths by causes and per cent distribution to total maternal deaths. Sample Registration System Bulletin 2000, 33(1):8.
• [3]Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Warvadekar J: Pathways and consequences of unsafe abortion: A comparison among women with complications after induced and spontaneous abortions in Madhya Pradesh, India. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012, 118(Supplement 2):S113-S120.
• [4]Chandrashekhar T, Khan Z, Gandhi M: Knowledge of legality and consequences of unsafe abortion practices in Jharkhand: An assessment. Ipas: New Delhi; 2005.
• [5]Ganatra B, Hirve S: Induced Abortions among Adolescent Women in Rural Maharashtra, India. Reprod Health Matters 2002, 10(19):76-85.
• [6]Malhotra A, Nyblade L, Parsuaman S, MacQuarrie K, Kashyap N, Walia S: Realizing Reproductive Choice and Rights: Abortion and Contraception in India. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women (ICRW); 2003.
• [7]Duggal R: The Political Economy of Abortion in India: Cost and Expenditure Patterns. Reprod Health Matters 2004, 12(24):130-137.
• [8]Patel L: Medication Abortion Provision in Bihar and Jharkhand, India: Health Facility Level and Provider Level Influences. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 2008.
• [9]Duggal R, Ramachandran V: The abortion assessment project–India: key findings and recommendations. Reprod Health Matters 2004, 12(24):122-129.
• [10]Iyengar SD: Introducing Medical Abortion within the Primary Health System: Comparison with Other Health Interventions and Commodities. Reprod Health Matters 2005, 13(26):13-19.
• [11]Aich P, Banerjee SK, Jha TK, Aggarwal A: Situation analysis of MTP services in Bihar. Ipas India: New Delhi; 2011.
• [12]Paul VK, Sachdev HS, Mavalankar D, Ramachandran P, Sankar MJ, Bahandari N, Sreenivas V, Sundaraman T, Doval D, Osrin D, Kirkwood B: Reproductive health, and child health and nutrition in India: meeting the challenge. Lancet 2011, 377:332-349.
• [13]Eble A: Incentives, women and children: how the ASHA program can reduce child mortality in rural India, and how it might fail. Invisible India. Kathmnadu, Nepal 2012.
• [14]Htay TT, Sauvarin J, Khan S: Integration of Post-abortion Care: The Role of Township Medical Officers and Midwives in Myanmar. Reprod Health Matters 2003, 31(2):73-79.
• [15]Swain S, Swain P, Nair K, Gupta S, Nandan D: A rapid appraisal of functioning of ASHA under NRHM in Orissa. Health Popul Perspect Issues 2008, 31(2):73-79.
• [16]Sood S, Shefner-Rogers C, Sengupta M: The impact of a mass media campaign on HIV/AIDS knowledge and behavior change in North India: results from a longitudinal study. Asian J Commun 2006, 16:231-250.
• [17]Daniel EE, Masilamani R, Rahman M: The effect of community-based reproductive health communication interventions on contraceptive use among young married couples in Bihar, India. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2008, 34(4):189-197.
• [18]International Institute for Population Sciences, ORC Macro: National family health survey-3 India, 2005-2006. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences; 2007.
• [19]Barua A, Apte H: Quality of abortion care: Perspectives of clients and providers in Jharkhand. Econ Polit Wkly 2007, 42(48):71-80.
• [20]Ganatra B, Manning V, Pallipamulla SP: Medical Abortion in Bihar and Jharkhand: A Study of Service Providers, Chemists, Women and Men. Ipas India: New Delhi; 2005.
• [21]Ganatra B, Banerjee SK: Expanding community-based access to medical abortion in Jharkhand: A pre-intervention baseline survey in selected two blocks of Ranchi and Khunti districts. Ipas India: New Delhi, India; 2010.
• [22]Srivastava R, Sasikumar SK: An overview of migration in India, its impacts and key issues. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit, Bangladesh & Department for International Development, UK; 2003. [Presented at the Regional Conference on Migration, Development and Pro-Poor Policy Choices in Asia]
• [23]Jejeebhoy S, Zavier AJF, Acharaya R, Kalyanwala S: Increasing access to safe abortion in rural Maharashtra: Outcomes of a Comprehensive Abortion Care model. Population Council: New Delhi, India; 2011.
• [24]Banerjee SK, Andersen KL, Warvadekar J, Batra S, Khan DU: Sharing messages about safe abortion services: Evaluating the Ipas BCC intervention in Bihar and Jharkhand. Ipas India: New Delhi; 2012.
• [25]Banerjee SK, Batra S, Ganatra B, Baird TL: Involving healthcare intermediaries in providing information and referrals for medical abortion: A community-based intervention in Jharkhand, India. New Delhi, India: Presented at the Global Maternal Health Conference; 2010.
• [26]Banerjee SK, Andersen K, Tank J, Parihar M, Shah M, Thanwala U: Evaluation of a network of medical abortion providers in two districts of Maharashtra, India. Glob Public Health 2011, 6(3):283-292.