Inequities in utilization of maternal health interventions in Namibia: implications for progress towards MDG 5 targets

Abstract

BackgroundInequities in the utilization of maternal health services impede progress towards the MDG 5 target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015. In Namibia, despite increasing investments in the health sector, the maternal mortality ratio has increased from 271 per 100,000 live births in the period 1991-2000 to 449 per 100,000 live births in 1998-2007. Monitoring equity in the use of maternal health services is important to target scarce resources to those with more need and expedite the progress towards the MDG 5 target. The objective of this study is to measure socio-economic inequalities in access to maternal health services and propose recommendations relevant for policy and planning.MethodsData from the Namibia Demographic and Health Survey 2006-07 are analyzed for inequities in the utilization of maternal health. In measuring the inequities, rate-ratios, concentration curves and concentration indices are used.ResultsRegions with relatively high human development index have the highest rates of delivery by skilled health service providers. The rate of caesarean section in women with post secondary education is about seven times that of women with no education. Women in urban areas are delivered by skilled providers 30% more than their rural counterparts. The rich use the public health facilities 30% more than the poor for child delivery.ConclusionMost of the indicators such as delivery by trained health providers, delivery by caesarean section and postnatal care show inequities favoring the most educated, urban areas, regions with high human development indices and the wealthy. In the presence of inequities, it is difficult to achieve a significant reduction in the maternal mortality ratio needed to realize the MDG 5 targets so long as a large segment of society has inadequate access to essential maternal health services and other basic social services. Addressing inequities in access to maternal health services should not only be seen as a health systems issue. The social determinants of health have to be tackled through multi-sectoral approaches in line with the principles of Primary Health Care and the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health.

Investigating the disparities in cervical cancer screening among Namibian women

“…This is in line with studies in developing countries that have examined how gendered norms and values continue to influence access and utilization of sexual and reproductive health services in patriarchal settings [24,25]. Prior studies in Namibia have documented wide disparities in health care utilization that are rooted in income and health access inequalities, including in the areas of immunizations and maternal services [26,27]. These studies reveal that over 80% of Namibians rely on poor-quality health services provided by the public health system, with only a few public sector employees covered under health insurance or with private health insurance coverage [28] The positive association between birth-parity and cervical cancer testing is worth noting.…”

Do Inequalities in Health Care Utilization in Developing Countries Change When We Take into Account Traditional Medicines?

“…Yet, there were pro rich inequities in utilization of treatment. Similarly in Namibia, the rich are also 30% more likely to use formal maternal services than the poor (Zere et al, 2010). Gwatkin (2001) and Gwatkin et al (2000: 721) provide further evidence from over forty countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where it was found that uptake for oral rehydration therapy was 10-20% higher for the upper classes, and immunization rates for the poor were only around half that of the rich.…”

The Long Term Economic Impact of Severe Obstetric Complications for Women and Their Children in Burkina Faso

“…For this, we compare well-being indicators of women who suffered a near miss event and those who had an uncomplicated delivery. However, differences in well-being indicators may be biased by socio-economic differences that already existed between the two groups, which in this setting is more likely because our sample is hospital-based: women from wealthier households tend to go to hospital irrespective of expecting complications [26-30], while women from poorer households only go to hospital when expecting complications or when unexpected complications suddenly arise. Women with complications who were selected into our sample may, on average, be poorer than women without complications.…”