See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
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
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Chijioke Emmanuel Obagha
University of Ibadan
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7817-0606
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Burden of Malaria in pregnancy (MIP) is still high despite deployment of proven cost-effective interventions. Considerable progress has been made on improving antenatal attendance but MIP preventive services utilization remains low. Factors responsible for this include dissatisfaction with the services provided. We assessed clients’ satisfaction with malaria in pregnancy services delivered at antenatal clinics (ANC) in Anambra State Nigeria.
Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 284 pregnant women attending ANC using a three-stage sampling technique. Pre-tested semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on socio-demographics, knowledge of malaria in pregnancy services and satisfaction with services. Responses to questions on satisfaction was on a 5-point Likert scale. A cut off of ≥75% of composite score was used to classify respondents as satisfied. For knowledge, every correct answer was scored 1 and incorrect 0; ≥75% of the composite score was graded as good knowledge. Chi square and logistic regression were used to test for association between client satisfaction and independent variables.
Results: The mean age of participants is 28 years±4.4 years. Overall 62.2% were satisfied with quality of MIP preventive services, but 64.8% and 57.8% were not satisfied with cost of healthcare and interpersonal relationship with the health workers (HWs). Majority of the of respondents (88.73%) had poor knowledge of MIP preventive services. Type of facility (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.11; 95%CI: 1.20-3.71) and knowledge (aOR: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.18 – 0.90) were independently associated with satisfaction with interpersonal relationship respectively. Type of facility (aOR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.27-0.80) and employment status (aOR: 3.07; 95%CI: 1.39 -6.74) were also independently associated with satisfaction with cost of healthcare domain.
Conclusion: A fair proportion of respondents were satisfied with the MIP services provided even though most were unsatisfied with the cost of assessing care and interpersonal relationship with health workers. To achieve satisfaction with services, the state government should subsidize the cost of services and encourage HWs to build good relationships with their clients especially at public secondary health facilities.
Keywords
Client satisfaction, Knowledge, Malaria in Pregnancy
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 Public Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 23 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 24 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 23 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 22 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 22 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 15 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 23 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 18 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Jun, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 05 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 03 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 May, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Dec, 2019
Review #3 received
Received 14 Dec, 2019
Review #4 received
Received 05 Dec, 2019
Review #5 received
Received 05 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 03 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 02 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 02 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 02 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 30 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 30 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 18 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 13 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 13 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 07 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Policy
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
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
Chijioke Emmanuel Obagha
University of Ibadan
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7817-0606
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 Public Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 23 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 24 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 23 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 22 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 22 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 15 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 23 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 18 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Jun, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 05 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 03 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 May, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Dec, 2019
Review #3 received
Received 14 Dec, 2019
Review #4 received
Received 05 Dec, 2019
Review #5 received
Received 05 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 03 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 02 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 02 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 02 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 30 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 30 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 18 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 13 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 13 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 07 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Policy
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Background: Burden of Malaria in pregnancy (MIP) is still high despite deployment of proven cost-effective interventions. Considerable progress has been made on improving antenatal attendance but MIP preventive services utilization remains low. Factors responsible for this include dissatisfaction with the services provided. We assessed clients’ satisfaction with malaria in pregnancy services delivered at antenatal clinics (ANC) in Anambra State Nigeria.
Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 284 pregnant women attending ANC using a three-stage sampling technique. Pre-tested semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on socio-demographics, knowledge of malaria in pregnancy services and satisfaction with services. Responses to questions on satisfaction was on a 5-point Likert scale. A cut off of ≥75% of composite score was used to classify respondents as satisfied. For knowledge, every correct answer was scored 1 and incorrect 0; ≥75% of the composite score was graded as good knowledge. Chi square and logistic regression were used to test for association between client satisfaction and independent variables.
Results: The mean age of participants is 28 years±4.4 years. Overall 62.2% were satisfied with quality of MIP preventive services, but 64.8% and 57.8% were not satisfied with cost of healthcare and interpersonal relationship with the health workers (HWs). Majority of the of respondents (88.73%) had poor knowledge of MIP preventive services. Type of facility (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.11; 95%CI: 1.20-3.71) and knowledge (aOR: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.18 – 0.90) were independently associated with satisfaction with interpersonal relationship respectively. Type of facility (aOR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.27-0.80) and employment status (aOR: 3.07; 95%CI: 1.39 -6.74) were also independently associated with satisfaction with cost of healthcare domain.
Conclusion: A fair proportion of respondents were satisfied with the MIP services provided even though most were unsatisfied with the cost of assessing care and interpersonal relationship with health workers. To achieve satisfaction with services, the state government should subsidize the cost of services and encourage HWs to build good relationships with their clients especially at public secondary health facilities.
Loading...