Is the closest health facility the one used in pregnancy care-seeking? A cross-sectional comparative analysis of self-reported and modelled geographical access to maternal care in Mozambique, India and Pakistan

Liberty Makacha, Prestige Tatenda Makanga, Yolisa Prudence Dube, Jeffrey Bone, Khátia Munguambe, Geetanjali Katageri, Sumedha Sharma, Marianne Vidler, Esperança Sevene, Umesh Ramadurg, Umesh Charantimath, Amit Revankar, Peter von Dadelszen, Liberty Makacha, Prestige Tatenda Makanga, Yolisa Prudence Dube, Jeffrey Bone, Khátia Munguambe, Geetanjali Katageri, Sumedha Sharma, Marianne Vidler, Esperança Sevene, Umesh Ramadurg, Umesh Charantimath, Amit Revankar, Peter von Dadelszen

Abstract

Background: Travel time to care is known to influence uptake of health services. Generally, pregnant women who take longer to transit to health facilities are the least likely to deliver in facilities. It is not clear if modelled access predicts fairly the vulnerability in women seeking maternal care across different spatial settings.

Objectives: This cross-sectional analysis aimed to (i) compare travel times to care as modelled in a GIS environment with self-reported travel times by women seeking maternal care in Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia: Mozambique, India and Pakistan; and (ii) investigate the assumption that women would seek care at the closest health facility.

Methods: Women were interviewed to obtain estimated travel times to health facilities (R). Travel time to the closest facility was also modelled (P) (closest facility tool (ArcGIS)) and time to facility where care was sought estimated (A) (route network layer finder (ArcGIS)). Bland-Altman analysis compared spatial variation in differences between modelled and self-reported travel times. Variations between travel times to the nearest facility (P) with modelled travel times to the actual facilities accessed (A) were analysed. Log-transformed data comparison graphs for medians, with box plots superimposed distributions were used.

Results: Modelled geographical access (P) is generally lower than self-reported access (R), but there is a geography to this relationship. In India and Pakistan, potential access (P) compared fairly with self-reported travel times (R) [P (H0: Mean difference = 0)] < .001, limits of agreement: [- 273.81; 56.40] and [- 264.10; 94.25] respectively. In Mozambique, mean differences between the two measures of access were significantly different from 0 [P (H0: Mean difference = 0) = 0.31, limits of agreement: [- 187.26; 199.96]].

Conclusion: Modelling access successfully predict potential vulnerability in populations. Differences between modelled (P) and self-reported travel times (R) are partially a result of women not seeking care at their closest facilities. Modelling access should not be viewed through a geographically static lens. Modelling assumptions are likely modified by spatio-temporal and/or socio-cultural settings. Geographical stratification of access reveals disproportionate variations in differences emphasizing the varied nature of assumptions across spatial settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01911494. Registered 30 July 2013, https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01911494.

Keywords: Bland–Altman Index; Fixed bias; Limits of agreement; Potential access; Proportional bias; Realised access.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CLIP Mozambique, India and Pakistan study sites
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Study sites with final participating samples per study site
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Country specific comparative analysis of potential and realised access to care
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparisons of distributions of modelled travel time with travel time to facility where care was sought

References

    1. WHO . Primary Health Care, Now more than ever. Geneva: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2008.
    1. Kieny M-P, Evans TG, Scarpetta S, Kelley ET, Klazinga N, Forde I, Veillard JHM, Leatherman S, Syed S, Kim SM, Nejad SB, Donaldson L. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for Universal Health Coverage, vol. 1. World Bank; 2018. .
    1. Ferguson WJ, Kemp K, Kost G. Using a geographic information system to enhance patient access to point-of-care diagnostics in a limited-resource setting. Int J Health Geogr. 2016;15:10. doi: 10.1186/s12942-016-0037-9.
    1. Tanser FC, le Sueur D. The application of geographical information systems to important public health problems in Africa. Int J Health Geogr. 2002;1(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-1-4.
    1. Makanga PT, Schuurman N, Sacoor C, Boene HE, Vilanculo F, Vidler M, Magee L, von Dadelszen P, Sevene E, Munguambe K, Firoz T. Seasonal variation in geographical access to maternal health services in regions of southern Mozambique. Int J Health Geogr. 2017 doi: 10.1186/s12942-016-0074-4.
    1. Hussein J, McCaw-Binns A, Webber R. Geographical access, transport and referral systems. In: Hussein J, McCaw-Binns A, Webber R (Eds.), Maternal and perinatal health in developing countries (p. 139–154). CABI. 10.1079/9781845937454.0139.
    1. Thaddeus S, Maine D. Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1091–1110. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90226-7.
    1. Curl A, Nelson J, Anable J. Same question, different answer: a comparison of GIS-based journey time accessibility with self-reported measures from the English National Travel Survey. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2015;49:86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.10.006.
    1. Fone DL, Christie S, Lester N. Comparison of perceived and modelled geographical access to accident and emergency departments: a cross-sectional analysis from the caerphilly health and social needs study. Int J Health Geogr. 2006;5(1):16. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-5-16.
    1. Haynes R, Jones AP, Sauerzapf V, Zhao H. Validation of travel times to hospital estimated by GIS. Int J Health Geogr. 2006;5:40. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-5-40.
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. J Roy Stat Soc: Series D (Stat) 1983;32(3):307–317. doi: 10.2307/2987937.
    1. Ludbrook J. Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods Of measurement: a critical review. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002;29:527–536. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03686.x.
    1. von Dadelszen P, Magee L, Payne B, Bhutta ZA. Protocol 13PRT/9313 The Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) Trials: Four prospective cluster randomised controlled trials comparing a package of interventions directed towards improving maternal and perinatal outcomes related to pre-eclampsia with current standards of care (NCT01911494); 2018. .
    1. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Gorber SC, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-56.
    1. Kelly C, Hulme C, Farragher T, Clarke G. Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013059. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013059.
    1. Huot S, Ho H, Ko A, Lam S, Tactay P, MacLachlan J, Raanaasd RK. Identifying barriers to healthcare delivery and access in the Circumpolar North: important insights for health professionals. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2019 doi: 10.1080/22423982.2019.1571385.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir