Technology Preference in Choices of Delivery Care Utilization from User Perspective –A Community Study in Vietnam

Tran Khanh Toan^1, , Bo Eriksson², Pham Nhat An³, Nguyen Thi Kim Chuc¹, Goran Bondjers⁴ and Karin Gottvall⁵

¹Family Medicine Department, Hanoi Medical University (HMU), Hanoi, Vietnam

²The Nordic School of Public Health (NHV), Gothenburg, Sweden

³The National Hospital for Pediatrics, Hanoi, Vietnam

⁴Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (GU), Gothenburg, Sweden

⁵Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Cite this paper:
Tran Khanh Toan, Bo Eriksson, Pham Nhat An, Nguyen Thi Kim Chuc, Goran Bondjers and Karin Gottvall. Technology Preference in Choices of Delivery Care Utilization from User Perspective –A Community Study in Vietnam. American Journal of Public Health Research. 2013; 1(1):10-17. doi: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-2

Abstract

Choices for delivery care are made based on the available resources and influence health outcomes of women and their children. The aim of the paper is to study utilization and preference for delivery care and related factors in one urban and one rural area of northern Vietnam. Two cohorts of pregnant women were carried out in DodaLab and FilaBavi Health and Demographic Surveillance Sites (HDSS) in Hanoi, Vietnam from April 2008 to December 2009. Together, 2515 pregnant women were identified and followed until delivery through quarterly household interviews using structured questionnaires. Almost all women delivered at health care facilities. Most of the rural women gave birth at primary health care facilities (88.5%) while urban women primarily used secondary and tertiary hospitals (93.6%). Caesarean section (CS) was used for 38.5% of births in the urban area and 12.4% in the rural. Giving birth in hospitals and CS were more common among highly educated women, employed women, women living in households or communities with good economic conditions, and women expected to give birth to a son. Technology preference in delivery care was associated with better socioeconomic conditions and expecting a boy. Improving the quality and reputation of primary health care facilities, informing women about CS risks and monitoring indications of CS are important policy issues.

Keywords:
Technology preference delivery care utilization hospital delivery caesarean section rural and urban Vietnam

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Stanton, C., et al., Skilled care at birth in the developing world: progress to date and strategies for expanding coverage. Journal of biosocial science, 2007. 39(1): p. 109-20.
[2]	Barona-Vilar, C., et al., Perceptions and experiences of parenthood and maternal health care among Latin American women living in Spain: A qualitative study. Midwifery, 2012.
[3]	Hemminki, E., A. Heino, and M. Gissler, Should births be centralised in higher level hospitals? Experiences from regionalised health care in Finland. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2011. 118(10): p. 1186-95.
[4]	Moser, M., Comments on progress, medical care, and the overuse of technology. Journal of clinical hypertension, 2005. 7(8): p. 442-4.
[5]	Betran, A.P., et al., Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 2007. 21(2): p. 98-113.
[6]	Lumbiganon, P., et al., Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet, 2010. 375(9713): p. 490-9.
[7]	Vietnam Ministry of Health, Joint Annual Health Review 2010, 2011, Ministry of Health (MoH),: Hanoi.
[8]	Vietnam Ministry of Health and Vietnam General Statistics Office, Results of the National Health Survey 2001-2002.2003, Hanoi: Medical Publishing House.
[9]	Sepehri, A., et al., How important are individual, household and commune characteristics in explaining utilization of maternal health services in Vietnam? Social science & medicine, 2008. 67(6): p. 1009-17.
[10]	Tran, T.K., et al., Urban - rural disparities in antenatal care utilization: a study of two cohorts of pregnant women in Vietnam. BMC health services research, 2011. 11: p. 120.
[11]	WHO, Fifty-Seventh World Health Assembly. Provisional agenda item 12.10 A57/13, 2004, WHO: Geneva.
[12]	Dangal, G., High-Risk Pregnancy. The Internet Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2007. 7:1.
[13]	Pathak, P.K., A. Singh, and S.V. Subramanian, Economic inequalities in maternal health care: prenatal care and skilled birth attendance in India, 1992-2006. PloS one, 2010. 5(10): p. e13593.
[14]	Gabrysch, S. and O.M. Campbell, Still too far to walk: literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2009. 9: p. 34.
[15]	Tran, T.K., et al., Factors associated with antenatal care adequacy in rural and urban contexts-results from two health and demographic surveillance sites in Vietnam. BMC health services research, 2012. 12: p. 40.
[16]	Vietnam Ministry of Health, National plan on safe motherhood in Vietnam 2003-2010, M.o.H. (MoH), Editor 2003, Medical Publishing House, Hanoi. p. 45-56.
[17]	Le, Q.C., et al., Hospital overload in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City – An assessment and recommendations, 2007, Health Strategy and Policy Institute: Hanoi.
[18]	Pitchforth, E., et al., "Choice" and place of delivery: a qualitative study of women in remote and rural Scotland. Quality & safety in health care, 2009. 18(1): p. 42-8.
[19]	Mazzoni, A., et al., Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2011. 118(4): p. 391-9.
[20]	Nguyen, T.T.T. and H.D. Nguyen, Caesarean section and related factors in Gia Lam and Hoan Kiem districs, Hanoi 2007. Medical and Pharmatical Information Journal, 2008. 2008(11): p. 23-25.
[21]	Bowling, A. and S. Ebrahim, Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Quality in health care : QHC, 2001. 10 Suppl 1: p. i2-8.
[22]	Alkire, B.C., et al., Obstructed labor and caesarean delivery: the cost and benefit of surgical intervention. PloS one, 2012. 7(4): p. e34595.
[23]	Collard, T.D., et al., Elective cesarean section: why women choose it and what nurses need to know. Nursing for women's health, 2008. 12(6): p. 480-8.
[24]	Pang, M.W., et al., A longitudinal observational study of preference for elective caesarean section among nulliparous Hong Kong Chinese women. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2007. 114(5): p. 623-9.
[25]	Jacquemyn, Y., F. Ahankour, and G. Martens, Flemish obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, 2003. 111(2): p. 164-6.
[26]	Hantoushzadeh, S., et al., Caesarean or normal vaginal delivery: overview of physicians' self-preference and suggestion to patients. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2009. 280(1): p. 33-7.
[27]	Habiba, M., et al., Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2006. 113(6): p. 647-56.
[28]	Ronsmans, C., S. Holtz, and C. Stanton, Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis. Lancet, 2006. 368(9546): p. 1516-23.
[29]	Leone, T., S.S. Padmadas, and Z. Matthews, Community factors affecting rising caesarean section rates in developing countries: an analysis of six countries. Social science & medicine, 2008. 67(8): p. 1236-46.
[30]	Chu, K.H., et al., Women's preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Taiwanese women undergoing different modes of delivery. BMC health services research, 2010. 10: p. 138.
[31]	Belanger, D., Son preference in a rural village in North Vietnam. Studies in family planning, 2002. 33(4): p. 321-34.
[32]	Sufang, G., et al., Delivery settings and caesarean section rates in China. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2007. 85(10): p. 755-62.
[33]