Khatri RB, Durham J, Assefa Y. Investigation of technical quality of antenatal and perinatal services in a nationally representative sample of health facilities in Nepal.
Arch Public Health 2022;
80:162. [PMID:
35787734 PMCID:
PMC9252055 DOI:
10.1186/s13690-022-00917-z]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Access to routine antenatal and perinatal services is improved in the last two decades in Nepal. However, gaps remain in coverage and quality of care delivered from the health facilities. This study investigated the delivery of technical quality antenatal and perinatal services from health facilities and their associated determinants in Nepal.
METHODS
Data for this study were derived from the Nepal Health Facility Survey 2015. The World Health Organization's Service Availability and Readiness Assessment framework was adopted to assess the technical quality of antenatal and perinatal services of health facilities. Outcome variables included technical quality scores of i) 269 facilities providing antenatal services and ii) 109 facilities providing childbirth and postnatal care services (perinatal care). Technical quality scores of health facilities were estimated adapting recommended antenatal and perinatal interventions. Independent variables included locations and types of health facilities and their management functions (e.g., supervision). We conducted a linear regression analysis to identify the determinants of better technical quality of health services in health facilities. Beta coefficients were exponentiated into odds ratios (ORs) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The significance level was set at p-value < 0.05.
RESULTS
The mean score of the technical quality of health facilities for each outcome variable (antenatal and perinatal services) was 0.55 (out of 1.00). Compared to province one, facilities of Madhesh province had 4% lower odds (adjusted OR = 0.96; 95%CI: 0.92, 0.99) of providing better quality antenatal services, while health facilities of Gandaki province had higher odds of providing better quality antenatal services (aOR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10). Private facilities had higher odds (aOR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.23) of providing better quality perinatal services compared to public facilities.
CONCLUSIONS
Private facilities provide better quality antenatal and perinatal health services than public facilities, while health facilities of Madhesh province provide poor quality perinatal services. Health system needs to implement tailored strategies, including recruiting health workers, supervision and onsite coaching and access to necessary equipment and medicine in the facilities of Madhesh province. Health system inputs (trained human resources, equipment and supplies) are needed in the public facilities. Extending the safe delivery incentive programme to the privately managed facilities could also improve access to better quality health services in Nepal.
Collapse