Skip to main content

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