IntroductionMaternity 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 analysisWe 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 disseminationEthical 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 numberNCT02620436; Pre-results.

PurposeAccess to skilled care and facilities with capacity to provide emergency obstetric and newborn care is critical to reducing maternal mortality. In rural areas of Zambia, 42% of women deliver at home, suggesting persistent challenges for women in seeking, reaching, and receiving quality maternity care. This study assessed the determinants of home delivery among remote women in rural Zambia.MethodsA household survey was administered to a random selection of recently delivered women living 10 km or more from their catchment area health facility in 40 sites. A subset of respondents completed an in-depth interview. Multiple regression and content analysis were used to analyze the data.ResultsThe final sample included 2,381 women, of which 240 also completed an interview. Households were a median of 12.8 km (interquartile range 10.9, 16.2) from their catchment area health facility. Although 1% of respondents intended to deliver at home, 15.3% of respondents actually delivered at home and 3.2% delivered en route to a facility. Respondents cited shorter than expected labor, limited availability and high costs of transport, distance, and costs of required supplies as reasons for not delivering at a health facility. After adjusting for confounders, women with a first pregnancy (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.1, 0.2) and who stayed at a maternity waiting home (MWH) while awaiting delivery were associated with reduced odds of home delivery (aOR 0.1, 95% CI: 0.1, 0.2). Being over 35 (aOR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9, 1.9), never married (aOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.7), not completing the recommended four or more antenatal visits (aOR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.5, 2.5), and not living in districts exposed to a large-scale maternal health program (aOR 3.2, 95% CI: 2.3, 4.5) were significant predictors of home delivery. After adjusting for confounders, living nearer to the facility (9.5–10 km) was not associated with reduced odds of home delivery, though the CIs suggest a trend toward significance (aOR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4, 1.1).ConclusionFindings highlight persistent challenges facing women living in remote areas when it comes to realizing their intentions regarding delivery location. Interventions to reduce home deliveries should potentially target not only those residing farthest away, but multigravida women, those who attend fewer antenatal visits, and those who do not utilize MWHs.

Purpose Out-of-pocket expenses associated with facility-based deliveries are a well-known barrier to health care access. However, there is extremely limited contemporary information on delivery-related household out-of-pocket expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa. We assess the financial burden of delivery for the most remote Zambian women and compare differences between delivery locations (primary health center, hospital, or home). Methods We conducted household surveys and in-depth interviews among randomly selected remote Zambian women who delivered a baby within the last 13 months. Women reported expenditures for their most-recent delivery for delivery supplies, transportation, and baby clothes, among others. Expenditures were converted to US dollars for analysis. Results Of 2280 women sampled, 2223 (97.5%) reported spending money on their delivery. Nearly all respondents in the sample (95.9%) spent money on baby clothes/blanket, while over 80% purchased delivery supplies such as disinfectant or cord clamps, and a third spent on transportation. Women reported spending a mean of USD28.76 on their delivery, with baby clothes/blanket (USD21.46) being the main expenditure and delivery supplies (USD3.81) making up much of the remainder. Compared to women who delivered at home, women who delivered at a primary health center spent nearly USD4 (p<0.001) more for their delivery, while women who delivered at a level 1 or level 2 hospital spent over USD7.50 (p<0.001) more for delivery. Conclusion These expenses account for approximately one third of the monthly household income of the poorest Zambian households. While the abolition of user fees has reduced the direct costs of delivering at a health facility for the poorest members of society, remote Zambian women still face high out-of-pocket expenses in the form of delivery supplies that facilities should provide as well as unofficial policies/norms requiring women to bring new baby clothes/blanket to a facility-based delivery. Future programs that target these expenses may increase access to facility-based delivery.

To reduce maternal mortality, countries must continue to seek ways to increase access to skilled care during pregnancy and delivery. In Zambia, while antenatal attendance is high, many barriers exist that prevent women from delivering with a skilled health provider. This study explores how the individuals closest to a pregnant woman in rural Zambia can influence a woman's decision to seek and her ability to access timely maternity care. At four rural health centers, a free listing (n = 167) exercise was conducted with mothers, fathers, and community elders. Focus group discussions (FGD) (n = 135) were conducted with mothers, fathers, mothers-in-law, and community health workers (CHWs) to triangulate findings. We analyzed the FGD data against a framework that overlaid the Three Delays Framework and the Social Ecological Model. Respondents cited husbands, female relatives, and CHWs as the most important influencers during a woman's maternity period. Husbands have responsibilities to procure resources, especially baby clothes, and provide the ultimate permission for a woman to attend ANC or deliver at a facility. Female relatives escort the woman to the facility, assist during her wait, provide emotional support, assist the nurse during delivery, and care for the woman after delivery. CHWs educate the woman during pregnancy about the importance of facility delivery. No specific individual has the role of assisting with the woman's household responsibilities or identifying transport to the health facility. When husbands, female relatives, or CHWs do not fulfill their roles, this presents a barrier to a woman deciding to deliver at the health facility (Delay 1) or reaching a health facility (Delay 2). An intervention to help women better plan for acquiring the needed resources and identifying the individuals to escort her and those to perform her household responsibilities could help to reduce these barriers to accessing timely maternal care.

IntroductionIn 2014, the South African government adopted a differentiated service delivery (DSD) model in its “National Adherence Guidelines for Chronic Diseases (HIV, TB and NCDs)” (AGL) to strengthen the HIV care cascade. We describe the barriers and facilitators of the AGL implementation as experienced by various stakeholders in eight intervention and control sites across four districts.MethodsEmbedded within a cluster‐randomized evaluation of the AGL, we conducted 48 in‐depth interviews (IDIs) with healthcare providers, 16 IDIs with Department of Health and implementing partners and 24 focus group discussions (FGDs) with three HIV patient groups: new, stable and those not stable on treatment or not adhering to care. IDIs were conducted from August 2016 to August 2017; FGDs were conducted in January to February 2017. Content analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Findings were triangulated among respondent types to elicit barriers and facilitators to implementation.ResultsNew HIV patients found counselling helpful but intervention respondents reported sub‐optimal counselling and privacy concerns as barriers to initiation. Providers felt insufficiently trained for this intervention and were confused by the simultaneous rollout of the Universal Test and Treat strategy. For stable patients, repeat prescription collection strategies (RPCS) were generally well received. Patients and providers concurred that RPCS reduced congestion and waiting times at clinics. There was confusion though, among providers and implementers, around implementation of RPCS interventions. For patients not stable on treatment, enhanced counselling and tracing patients lost‐to‐follow‐up were perceived as beneficial to adherence behaviours but faced logistical challenges. All providers faced difficulties accessing data and identifying patients in need of tracing. Congestion at clinics and staff attitude were perceived as barriers preventing patients returning to care.ConclusionsImplementation of DSD models at scale is complex but this evaluation identified several positive aspects of AGL implementation. The positive perception of RPCS interventions and challenges managing patients not stable on treatment aligned with results from the larger evaluation. While some implementation challenges may resolve with experience, ensuring providers and implementers have the necessary training, tools and resources to operationalize AGL effectively is critical to the overall success of South Africa’s HIV control strategy.