IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11211-d664522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes among Maternity Waiting Home Users and Non-Users in Rural Rwanda

Author

Listed:
  • Edwin Tayebwa

    (University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Global Health, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Richard Kalisa

    (IntraHealth International, Kigali 6639, Rwanda
    School of Public Health, University of Rwanda, Kigali 3286, Rwanda)

  • Amedee Fidele Ndibaza

    (IntraHealth International, Kigali 6639, Rwanda)

  • Lisa Cornelissen

    (Gelre Hospital, Albert Schweitzerlaan 31, 7334 DZ Apeldoorn, The Netherlands)

  • Eefje Klein Teeselink

    (Amalia Children’s Hospital, Radboudumc Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Young-Mi Kim

    (Jhpiego, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA)

  • Jeroen van Dillen

    (Amalia Children’s Hospital, Radboudumc Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Jelle Stekelenburg

    (University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Global Health, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leeuwarden Medical Centre, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Most maternal and perinatal deaths could be prevented through timely access to skilled birth attendants. Women should access appropriate obstetric care during pregnancy, labor, and puerperium. Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) permit access to emergency obstetric care when labor starts. This study compared maternal and perinatal outcomes among MWH users and non-users through a retrospective cohort study. Data were collected through obstetric chart reviews and analyzed using STATA version 15. Of the 8144 deliveries reported between 2015 and 2019, 1305 women had high-risk pregnancies and were included in the study. MWH users had more spontaneous vaginal deliveries compared to non-users (38.6% versus 16.8%) and less cesarean sections (57.7% versus 76.7%). Maternal morbidities such as postpartum hemorrhage occurred less frequently among users than non-users (2.13% versus 5.64%). Four women died among non-users while there was no death among users. Non-users had more stillbirths than users (7.68% versus 0.91%). The MWH may have contributed to the observed differences in outcomes. However, many women with high risk pregnancies did not use the MWH, indicating a probable gap in awareness, usefulness, or their inability to stay due to other responsibilities at home. Use of MWHs at scale could improve maternal and perinatal outcomes in Rwanda.

Suggested Citation

  • Edwin Tayebwa & Richard Kalisa & Amedee Fidele Ndibaza & Lisa Cornelissen & Eefje Klein Teeselink & Young-Mi Kim & Jeroen van Dillen & Jelle Stekelenburg, 2021. "Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes among Maternity Waiting Home Users and Non-Users in Rural Rwanda," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-9, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11211-:d:664522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11211/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11211/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11211-:d:664522. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.