Table 1 Quantitative studies included in a systematic review of the role of social capital on maternal and child health services uptake in LMICs
First author/publication year | Aim(s) and study Design | Country and year of study | Study participants and sample size | Data collection method(s) | Data analysis | Outcome measurement | Estimate for social capital | Limitation(s) of the study identified by the author(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singh et al., 2014 [37] | Aim: to examine factors associated with maternal healthcare utilization in nine high focus states Design: Secondary analysis of cross sectional study | India, 2007-08 | 125,721 ever-married women aged 15–49 |  A set of structured questionnaires namely, household, ever married woman, unmarried woman, village questionnaires and health facility survey | Multilevel analyses | ≥ 4 ANC visits | • Individual/household level Social group: Scheduled Tribes; AOR = 0.83 (0.80–0.87) Scheduled Castes; AOR = 0.90 (0.87–0.92) | • Recall bias since information was collected retrospectively, women may overlook or may not accurately recall the number or timing of prenatal care, location, and attendant of birth, or PNC during interview • Not all predictors of maternal healthcare services use were included • limitation in considering measures of quality of healthcare services such as waiting time, staff attitudes and behavior |
Health facility delivery | • Individual/household level Social group: Scheduled Tribes; AOR = 0.83 (0.80–0.86) Scheduled Castes; AOR = 0.91 (0.89–0.94) | |||||||
PNC within 2 days after delivery | • Individual/household level Social group: Scheduled Tribes; AOR = 0.91 (0.88–0.95) | |||||||
Story et al., 2014 [27] | Aim: to examine the association between social capital and the utilization of antenatal care, professional delivery care, and childhood immunizations Design: Cross sectional study | India, 2005 | 10,739 women who recently gave birth and 7,403 children between one and five years of age in 2,293 communities and 22 state-groups | Household interviews were conducted with ever-married women aged 15–45 | Multilevel logistic regression Exploratory factor analysis | ≥ 4 ANC visits | • Individual/household level: Social networks (AOR = 1.10) • Community level: Intergroup bridging ties (AOR = 1.22) Intragroup bonding tie (AOR = 0.83) Collective efficacy (AOR = 0.90) | • The study was not designed to infer a causal association due to the retrospective, cross-sectional nature of the data. • No way to differentiate between male and female participation in the social capital questions • Measurement of each component of social capital was limited by the questions that were used in the survey |
Health facility delivery | • Community level: Intragroup bonding tie (AOR = 1.13) Social networks (AOR = 1.16) Social cohesion (AOR = 0.90) Collective efficacy (AOR = 1.09) | |||||||
Semali et al., 2015 [38] | Aim: to determine the role of social capital in facilitating health facility delivery Design: Community based cross sectional study | Tanzania, 2015 | 744 mothers with children aged less than five years | Validated World Bank’s social capital assessment tool was used [68]. Questionnaire administered in face-to face interviews. | Multilevel analysis and Principal Component Analysis | Health facility delivery | Social capital quintiles: Lowest; AOR = 2.9 (1.4–6.1) Moderate, AOR = 5.5 (2.3–13.3) High; AOR = 4.7 (1.9–11.6) Highest; AOR = 5.6 (2.4–13.4) | Mothers who survived the birth process and hence introduced a bias which might have overestimated the rate of facility deliveries |
Saha et al., 2013 [46] | Aim: to analyze the impact of self-help groups on maternal health service uptake at national level Design: secondary analysis of cross sectional study | India, 2013 | 643,944 ever married women (15–49 years) | Data was collected through self-reported information from respondents | Forward stepwise logistic regression model | Health facility delivery | Presence of self-help group: AOR = 1.19 (1.13–1.24) | • Information on women’s actual participation in self-help group activities was not included • Analysis done at the aggregate country level. This masks variations in the spread and intensity of self-help group activity • The availability of credit and the duration of association did not addressed • An explicit definition of self-help group was not stated • The design and nature of the study were not able to draw conclusions about causality |
Mohammed et al., 2019 [47] | Aim: to examine the association between male partners’ involvement in maternal health care on utilization of maternal health care services Design: community-based cross-sectional study | Ethiopia, 2014 | 210 male/female couples with a baby less than 6 months old | Two structured questionnaires were used to collect the data from men and women | Multivariate logistic regression models | At least one ANC visit | Overall male partners’ involvement (MPI) scale score: AOR = 1.61 (1.05–2.45) | Self-report might introduced social desirability bias |
Health facility delivery | Overall MPI scale score: AOR = 1.22 (1.01–1.48) | |||||||
McTavish et al., 2015 [39] | Aim: to examine the importance of social networks and social capital in maternal health care use Design: cross-sectional study | Cameroon, 2009 | 110 women between 18–45 years old who had given birth at any time in the five years prior | Interviews were conducted | Poisson regression and inductive content analysis | Number of maternal health care visits | Network resources Incidence rate ratios (IRR) = 1.13 (1.02–1.26) | Results may not be generalizable to other populations due to convenient sampling techniques |