See the published version of this preprint at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Different primary studies in Ethiopia showed the weight of institutional delivery service utilization and the factors associated with it. However, variation among those studies was seen. This study was aimed to estimate the pooled national prevalence and associated factors of Institutional delivery service utilization in Ethiopia.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were used to see publication bias. I-squared statistic was applied to check heterogeneity of studies. A weighted Dersimonian laired random effect model was applied to estimate the pooled national prevalence and the effect size of associated factors.
Result: A total of twenty four studies were included in this review. The pooled prevalence of Institutional delivery service utilization was 31% (95% Confidence interval (CI): 30%, 31.2%; I 2 = 0.00%). Attitude towards institutional delivery of 3 studies(Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR)=2.83; 95% CI 1.35,5.92 ), maternal age at first pregnancy of 4 studies(AOR= 3.59; 95% CI 2.27,5.69 ), residence setting of 7 studies (AOR= 3.84; 95% CI 1.31, 11.25), educational status of 5 studies(AOR=2.91;95% 1.88,4.52), availability of information source of 6 studies(AOR= 1.80;95% CI 1.16,2.78), ANC follow-up of 13 studies((AOR= 2.57 95% CI 1.46,4.54 )), frequency of ANC follow up of 4 studies(AOR= 4.04;95% CI 1.21,13.46), knowledge of institutional delivery & danger signs during pregnancy of 11 studies((AOR=3.04;95% CI 1.76 ,5.24 )) and place of birth the most recent birth of 4 studies(AOR=8.44;95% CI 5.75,12.39) were identified factors of institutional delivery service utilization.
Conclusions: The findings of this review found several modifiable factors such as empowering women through education, promoting antenatal care to prevent home delivery, increasing awareness of women through mass media and making services more accessible would likely to increase utilization of institutional delivery.
Keywords
skilled birth attendance, women, facility-based delivery
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
Version 3
Posted 15 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 30 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 12 Aug, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 21 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 26 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 09 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 12 Aug, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Aug, 2019
Editor assigned
On 23 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 22 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 22 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
Version 3
Posted 15 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 30 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 12 Aug, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 21 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 26 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 09 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 12 Aug, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Aug, 2019
Editor assigned
On 23 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 22 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 22 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
Background: Different primary studies in Ethiopia showed the weight of institutional delivery service utilization and the factors associated with it. However, variation among those studies was seen. This study was aimed to estimate the pooled national prevalence and associated factors of Institutional delivery service utilization in Ethiopia.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were used to see publication bias. I-squared statistic was applied to check heterogeneity of studies. A weighted Dersimonian laired random effect model was applied to estimate the pooled national prevalence and the effect size of associated factors.
Result: A total of twenty four studies were included in this review. The pooled prevalence of Institutional delivery service utilization was 31% (95% Confidence interval (CI): 30%, 31.2%; I 2 = 0.00%). Attitude towards institutional delivery of 3 studies(Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR)=2.83; 95% CI 1.35,5.92 ), maternal age at first pregnancy of 4 studies(AOR= 3.59; 95% CI 2.27,5.69 ), residence setting of 7 studies (AOR= 3.84; 95% CI 1.31, 11.25), educational status of 5 studies(AOR=2.91;95% 1.88,4.52), availability of information source of 6 studies(AOR= 1.80;95% CI 1.16,2.78), ANC follow-up of 13 studies((AOR= 2.57 95% CI 1.46,4.54 )), frequency of ANC follow up of 4 studies(AOR= 4.04;95% CI 1.21,13.46), knowledge of institutional delivery & danger signs during pregnancy of 11 studies((AOR=3.04;95% CI 1.76 ,5.24 )) and place of birth the most recent birth of 4 studies(AOR=8.44;95% CI 5.75,12.39) were identified factors of institutional delivery service utilization.
Conclusions: The findings of this review found several modifiable factors such as empowering women through education, promoting antenatal care to prevent home delivery, increasing awareness of women through mass media and making services more accessible would likely to increase utilization of institutional delivery.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...