You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Distributions and characteristics of sampled facilities, observed cases, and surveyed women

From: Impact of results-based financing on effective obstetric care coverage: evidence from a quasi-experimental study in Malawi

  Study arm Baseline   Midterm   Endline  
Sampled facilities
 Sample sizes, n (%) Intervention 17 (100)   18 (100)   23 (100)  
Control 9 (100)   12 (100)   9 (100)  
 Proportion of health centres  (i.e. not hospitals), n (%) Intervention 13 (76)   14 (78)   18 (78)  
Control 8 (98)   11 (92)   9 (100)  
 Proportion of public facilities (i.e. not private non-profit), n (%) Intervention 16 (94)   17 (94)   19 (83)  
Control 6 (67)   6 (50)   6 (67)  
Sampled obstetric cases
 Sample sizes, n (%) Intervention 61 (100)   106 (100)   131 (100)  
Control 19 (100)   51 (100)   18 (100)  
 Observed at health centres, n (%) Intervention 27 (44)   51 (48)   69 (47)  
Control 8 (89)   45 (88)   18 (100)  
 Observed at public facilities, n (%) Intervention 57 (93)   103 (97)   116 (89)  
Control 12 (63)   21 (41)   11 (61)  
Sampled women    p-value*   p-value*   p-value*
 Sample sizes, n (%) Intervention 1084 (100)   1141 (100)   1380 (100)  
Control 628 (100)   695 (100)   440 (100)  
 Women’s age in years, mean (SD) Intervention 25.5 (6.3)   25.1 (6.1)   25.2 (6.4)  
Control 25.8 (6.4) 0.41 25.0 (5.9) 0.64 25.5 (6.3) 0.35
 Parity in number of births, mean (SD) Intervention 3.3 (2.2)   2.9 (1.9)   3.0 (2.0)  
Control 3.3 (2.1) 0.58 3.0 (1.9) 0.87 3.0 (1.9) 0.94
 Distance in km to catchment EmOC facility, mean (SD) Intervention 5.8 (3.4)   5.7 (3.7)   5.5 (3.5)  
Control 5.6 (3.3) 0.28 5.5 (3.0) 0.32 5.5 (3.2) 0.96
 Household SES by wealth quintilea, mean (SD) Intervention 2.9 (1.4)   2.9 (1.5)   2.9 (1.4)  
Control 3.1 (1.4) 0.01 3.1 (1.3) 0.10 3.2 (1.4) < 0.01
 Service use at any facility including non-EmOCb, % (95-CI) Intervention 90.6 (86.3—93.6)   94.1 (91.8—95.8)   94.2 (91.9—95.9)  
Control 88.6 (81.6—93.2) 0.53 97.0 (94.7—98.3) 0.03 96.8 (93.7—98.4) 0.05
 Service use at an EmOC facility in study areab, % (95-CI) Intervention 75.4 (65.7—83.1)   79.2 (69.9—86.2)   78.7 (69.9—85.5)  
Control 66.2 (47.0—81.3) 0.32 73.8 (56.6—85.9) 0.49 64.0 (41.5—81.7) 0.14
 Service use at catchment EmOC facility b, % (95-CI) Intervention 60.3 (46.8—72.4)   65.2 (52.8—75.9)   65.4 (54.2—75.2)  
Control 40.6 (24.3—59.3) .07 45.0 (28.5—62.8) .05 38.5 (22.7—57.2) .01
  1. EmOC = emergency obstetric care, 95-CI = 95%-confidence interval, n = total number, SD = standard deviations, SES = socio-economic status;
  2. a quintile 1 = least wealthy, quintile 5 = most wealthy
  3. b confidence intervals adjusted for clustered sampling at catchment area level
  4. *p-values based on two-sample t-test