Barriers and facilitators to facility-based delivery in rural Zambia: a qualitative study of women's perceptions after implementation of an improved maternity waiting homes intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Women in sub-Saharan Africa face well-documented barriers to facility-based deliveries. An improved maternity waiting homes (MWH) model was implemented in rural Zambia to bring pregnant women closer to facilities for delivery. We qualitatively assessed whether MWHs changed perceived barriers to facility delivery among remote-living women. DESIGN: We administered in-depth interviews (IDIs) to a randomly selected subsample of women in intervention (n=78) and control (n=80) groups who participated in the primary quasi-experimental evaluation of an improved MWH model. The IDIs explored perceptions and preferences of delivery location. We conducted content analysis to understand perceived barriers and facilitators to facility delivery. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants lived in villages 10+ km from the health facility and had delivered a baby in the previous 12 months. INTERVENTION: The improved MWH model was implemented at 20 rural health facilities. RESULTS: Over 96% of participants in the intervention arm and 90% in the control arm delivered their last baby at a health facility. Key barriers to facility delivery were distance and transportation, and costs associated with delivery. Facilitators included no user fees, penalties for home delivery, desire for safe delivery and availability of MWHs. Most themes were similar between study arms. Both discussed the role MWHs have in improving access to facility-based delivery. Intervention arm participants expressed that the improved MWH model encourages use and helps overcome the distance barrier. Control arm participants either expressed a desire for an improved MWH model or did not consider it in their decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Even in areas with high facility-based delivery rates in rural Zambia, barriers to access persist. MWHs may be useful to address the distance challenge, but no single intervention is likely to address all barriers experienced by rural, low-resourced populations. MWHs should be considered in a broader systems approach to improving access in remote areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02620436.

If we build it, will they come? Results of a quasi-experimental study assessing the impact of maternity waiting homes on facility-based childbirth and maternity care in Zambia.

INTRODUCTION: Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) aim to increase access to maternity and emergency obstetric care by allowing women to stay near a health centre before delivery. An improved MWH model was developed with community input and included infrastructure, policies and linkages to health centres. We hypothesised this MWH model would increase health facility delivery among remote-living women in Zambia. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study at 40 rural health centres (RHC) that offer basic emergency obstetric care and had no recent stockouts of oxytocin or magnesium sulfate, located within 2 hours of a referral hospital. Intervention clusters (n=20) received an improved MWH model. Control clusters (n=20) implemented standard of care. Clusters were assigned to study arm using a matched-pair randomisation procedure (n=20) or non-randomly with matching criteria (n=20). We interviewed repeated cross-sectional random samples of women in villages 10+ kilometres from their RHC. The primary outcome was facility delivery; secondary outcomes included postnatal care utilisation, counselling, services received and expenditures. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Generalised estimating equations were used to estimate ORs. RESULTS: We interviewed 2381 women at baseline (March 2016) and 2330 at endline (October 2018). The improved MWH model was associated with increased odds of facility delivery (OR 1.60 (95% CI: 1.13 to 2.27); p<0.001) and MWH utilisation (OR 2.44 (1.62 to 3.67); p<0.001). The intervention was also associated with increased odds of postnatal attendance (OR 1.55 (1.10 to 2.19); p<0.001); counselling for family planning (OR 1.48 (1.15 to 1.91); p=0.002), breast feeding (OR 1.51 (1.20 to 1.90); p<0.001), and kangaroo care (OR 1.44 (1.15, 1.79); p=0.001); and caesarean section (OR 1.71 (1.16 to 2.54); p=0.007). No differences were observed in household expenditures for delivery. CONCLUSION: MWHs near well-equipped RHCs increased access to facility delivery, encouraged use of facilities with emergency care capacity, and improved exposure to counselling. MWHs can be useful in the effort to increase delivery at advanced facilities in areas where substantial numbers of women live remotely. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02620436.