Impact of maternity waiting homes on facility delivery among remote households in Zambia: protocol for a quasiexperimental, mixed-methods study

Nancy A Scott, Jeanette L Kaiser, Taryn Vian, Rachael Bonawitz, Rachel M Fong, Thandiwe Ngoma, Godfrey Biemba, Carol J Boyd, Jody R Lori, Davidson H Hamer, Peter C Rockers, Nancy A Scott, Jeanette L Kaiser, Taryn Vian, Rachael Bonawitz, Rachel M Fong, Thandiwe Ngoma, Godfrey Biemba, Carol J Boyd, Jody R Lori, Davidson H Hamer, Peter C Rockers

Abstract

Introduction: Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) aim to improve access to facility delivery in rural areas. However, there is limited rigorous evidence of their effectiveness. Using formative research, we developed an MWH intervention model with three components: infrastructure, management and linkage to services. This protocol describes a study to measure the impact of the MWH model on facility delivery among women living farthest (≥10 km) from their designated health facility in rural Zambia. This study will generate key new evidence to inform decision-making for MWH policy in Zambia and globally.

Methods and analysis: We are conducting a mixed-methods quasiexperimental impact evaluation of the MWH model using a controlled before-and-after design in 40 health facility clusters. Clusters were assigned to the intervention or control group using two methods: 20 clusters were randomly assigned using a matched-pair design; the other 20 were assigned without randomisation due to local political constraints. Overall, 20 study clusters receive the MWH model intervention while 20 control clusters continue to implement the 'standard of care' for waiting mothers. We recruit a repeated cross section of 2400 randomly sampled recently delivered women at baseline (2016) and endline (2018); all participants are administered a household survey and a 10% subsample also participates in an in-depth interview. We will calculate descriptive statistics and adjusted ORs; qualitative data will be analysed using content analysis. The primary outcome is the probability of delivery at a health facility; secondary outcomes include utilisation of MWHs and maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approvals were obtained from the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB), University of Michigan IRB (deidentified data only) and the ERES Converge IRB in Zambia. Written informed consent is obtained prior to data collection. Results will be disseminated to key stakeholders in Zambia, then through open-access journals, websites and international conferences.

Trial registration number: NCT02620436; Pre-results.

Keywords: Zambia; impact evaluation; maternal health; maternity waiting home; mixed methods; skilled birth attendance.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Core maternity waiting home model developed by the Maternity Home Alliance for intervention sites (n=20). ANC, antenatal care; BEmONC, basic emergency obstetric and neonatal complications; CEmONC, comprehensive emergency obstetric and neonatal care; PNC, postnatal care.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Map of the Maternity Home Alliance intervention and control study sites by partner. BU/RTC, Boston University and Right to Care Zambia; UM, University of Michigan.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Multistage random sampling strategy for baseline and endline. CEmONC, comprehensive emergency obstetric and neonatal care; GPS, global positioning system; HHS, household survey; IDI, in-depth interview.

References

    1. The United Nations. Goal 3: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. (accessed 2 Feb 2018).
    1. Central Statistical Office (CSO) Zambia, [Ministry of Health (MOH) [Zambia]. ICF International. Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2013-14. Rockville, Maryland, USA, 2014.
    1. UN General Assembly. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2030. (accessed 17 Jan 2018).
    1. Republic of Zambia Ministry of Health. National Health Strategic Plan 2011 - 2015, 2011:119.
    1. Republic of Zambia Ministry of Health. Roadmap for Accelerating Reduction of Maternal, Newborn and Child Mortality, 2013-2016. 2016:2013–6.
    1. Gabrysch S, Cousens S, Cox J, et al. . The influence of distance and level of care on delivery place in rural Zambia: a study of linked national data in a geographic information system. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000394 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000394
    1. Gabrysch S, Campbell OM, Lawn J. Still too far to walk: literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009;9:34 10.1186/1471-2393-9-34
    1. Lohela TJ, Campbell OM, Gabrysch S, et al. . Distance to care, facility delivery and early neonatal mortality in Malawi and Zambia. PLoS One 2012;7:e52110 10.1371/journal.pone.0052110
    1. Sialubanje C, Massar K, Hamer DH, et al. . Understanding the psychosocial and environmental factors and barriers affecting utilization of maternal healthcare services in Kalomo, Zambia: a qualitative study. Health Educ Res 2014;29:521–32. 10.1093/her/cyu011
    1. Stekelenburg J, van Lonkhuijzen L, Spaans W, et al. . Maternity waiting homes in rural districts in Africa: A cornerstone of safe motherhood? Curr Womens Health Rev 2006;2:235–8. 10.2174/157340406778699914
    1. Lori JR, Wadsworth AC, Munro ML, et al. . Promoting access: the use of maternity waiting homes to achieve safe motherhood. Midwifery 2013;29:1095–102. 10.1016/j.midw.2013.07.020
    1. Kelly J, Kohls E, Poovan P, et al. . The role of a maternity waiting area (MWA) in reducing maternal mortality and stillbirths in high-risk women in rural Ethiopia. BJOG 2010;117:1377–83. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02669.x
    1. Henry EG, Semrau K, Hamer DH, et al. . The influence of quality maternity waiting homes on utilization of facilities for delivery in rural Zambia. Reprod Health 2017;14:68 10.1186/s12978-017-0328-z
    1. Fogliati P, Straneo M, Mangi S, et al. . A new use for an old tool: maternity waiting homes to improve equity in rural childbirth care. Results from a cross-sectional hospital and community survey in Tanzania. Health Policy Plan 2017;32:1354–60. 10.1093/heapol/czx100
    1. García Prado A, Cortez R. Maternity waiting homes and institutional birth in Nicaragua: policy options and strategic implications. Int J Health Plann Manage 2012;27:150–66. 10.1002/hpm.1107
    1. Chandramohan D, Cutts F, Millard P. The effect of stay in a maternity waiting home on perinatal mortality in rural Zimbabwe. J Trop Med Hyg 1995;98:261–7 .
    1. Chandramohan D, Cutts F, Chandra R. Effects of a maternity waiting home on adverse maternal outcomes and the validity of antenatal risk screening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994;46:279–84. 10.1016/0020-7292(94)90406-5
    1. Gaym A, Pearson L, Soe KW, Kww S. Maternity waiting homes in Ethiopia--three decades experience. Ethiop Med J 2012;50:209–19.
    1. van Lonkhuijzen L, Stegeman M, Nyirongo R, et al. . Use of maternity waiting home in rural Zambia. Afr J Reprod Health 2003;7:32–6. 10.2307/3583343
    1. Andemichael G, Haile B, Kosia A, et al. . Maternity waiting homes: A panacea for maternal/neonatal conundrums in Eritrea. J Eritrean Med Assoc 2009;4:18–21.
    1. van Lonkhuijzen L, Stekelenburg J, van Roosmalen J. Maternity waiting facilities for improving maternal and neonatal outcome in low-resource countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:CD006759 10.1002/14651858.CD006759.pub3
    1. Wild K, Barclay L, Kelly P, et al. . The tyranny of distance: maternity waiting homes and access to birthing facilities in rural Timor-Leste. Bull World Health Organ 2012;90:97–103. 10.2471/BLT.11.088955
    1. Ministry of Health (MOH). Zambia National Health Strategic Plan 2017-2021, 2017.
    1. Chibuye PS, Bazant ES, Wallon M, et al. . Experiences with and expectations of maternity waiting homes in Luapula Province, Zambia: a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study with women, community groups and stakeholders. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:42 10.1186/s12884-017-1649-1
    1. Lori JR, Munro-Kramer ML, Mdluli EA, et al. . Developing a community driven sustainable model of maternity waiting homes for rural Zambia. Midwifery 2016;41:89–95. 10.1016/j.midw.2016.08.005
    1. Scott NA, Vian T, Kaiser JL, et al. . Listening to the community: Using formative research to strengthen maternity waiting homes in Zambia. PLoS One 2018;13:e0194535 10.1371/journal.pone.0194535
    1. Central Statistical Office (CSO) Zambia. 2010 Census of Population and Housing - Southern Province Analytical Report. 2014. .
    1. Central Statistical Office (CSO) Zambia. 2010 Census of Population and Housing - Eastern Province Analytical Report. 2014. (accessed 19 Jan 2018).
    1. Central Statistical Office (CSO) Zambia. Zambia 2010 Census of Population and Housing Population Summary Report. 2012. (accessed 19 Jan 2018).
    1. Zambian Ministry of Health. The 2012 List of Health Facilities in Zambia: Preliminary Report, v15, 2013:252.
    1. SMGL. Saving Mothers Giving Life - Home. 2016. (accessed 16 Nov 2016).
    1. Bernard HR. Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd ed USA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2013.
    1. Hamer DH, Herlihy JM, Musokotwane K, et al. . Engagement of the community, traditional leaders, and public health system in the design and implementation of a large community-based, cluster-randomized trial of umbilical cord care in Zambia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015;92:666–72. 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0218
    1. Semrau KEA, Herlihy J, Grogan C, et al. . Effectiveness of 4% chlorhexidine umbilical cord care on neonatal mortality in Southern Province, Zambia (ZamCAT): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 2016;4:e827–e836. 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30215-7
    1. Pagel C, Prost A, Lewycka S, et al. . Intracluster correlation coefficients and coefficients of variation for perinatal outcomes from five cluster-randomised controlled trials in low and middle-income countries: results and methodological implications. Trials 2011;12:151 10.1186/1745-6215-12-151
    1. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. . ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919

Source: PubMed

3
订阅