Show simple item record

Understanding why child welfare clinic attendance and growth of children in the nutrition surveillance programme is below target: lessons learnt from a mixed methods study in Ghana

dc.contributor.authorAgbozo, Faith
dc.contributor.authorColecraft, Esi
dc.contributor.authorJahn, Albrecht
dc.contributor.authorGuetterman, Timothy
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-24T03:28:46Z
dc.date.available2018-06-24T03:28:46Z
dc.date.issued2018-06-19
dc.identifier.citationBMC Nursing. 2018 Jun 19;17(1):25
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0294-y
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/144516
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Growth monitoring and promotion (GMP) programmes promote not only child health but serve as a service delivery strategy to enhance coverage for other crucial nutrition-specific interventions. This study compared community-based and facility-based GMP programme with respect to attendance rates, children’s nutritional status, caregivers’ satisfaction with services received and perceptions of service providers and users on factors influencing utilization. Methods Explanatory sequential mixed methods study conducted in Ga West municipality, Ghana. It comprised 12-month secondary data analysis using growth monitoring registers of 220 infants aged 0–3 months enrolled in two community-based (CB = 104) and two facility-based (FB = 116) child welfare clinics; cross-sectional survey (exit interview) of 232 caregiver-child pairs accessing CB (n = 104) and FB services (n = 116); and in-depth interviews with 10 health workers and 15 mothers. Quantitative data were analyzed through Fisher’s exact, unpaired t-tests, and logistic regression at 95% confidence interval (CI) using SPSS version 20. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic content analysis using ATLAS.ti 7.0. Results Mean annual attendance to both programmes was similar with an average of six visits per year. Only 13.6% of caregiver-child pairs attained more than nine visits in the 12-months period. At least 60% of children in both programs had improved weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) scores during participation. Predictors for improved WAZ were being underweight at baseline (AOR:11.1, 95%CI:4.0–31.0), annual attendance of at least six visits (AOR:2.2, 95%CI:1.1–4.1) and meeting the Ghana Health Service target of nine visits (AOR:4.65, 95%CI:1.4–15.1). Compared to 31.5% CB users, significant proportion of FB caregivers (57.4%) were visited at home. Half were dissatisfied with services received (CB:55.6% vs. FB:62.0%, p = 0.437) citing long waiting times, negative staff attitude and extortions of money. Regarding perceptions on factors hindering service utilization, emerged themes included extremes of maternal age, high parity, postpartum socio-cultural beliefs and practices, financial commitments, undue delays, unprofessional staff behaviours, high premium on vaccination and general misconceptions about the programme. Conclusion The association of increased attendance with improved growth reaffirms the need to strengthen primary healthcare systems to improve service delivery; sensitize caregivers on contribution of growth monitoring and promotion to early child development; and increase contacts through home visits.
dc.titleUnderstanding why child welfare clinic attendance and growth of children in the nutrition surveillance programme is below target: lessons learnt from a mixed methods study in Ghana
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144516/1/12912_2018_Article_294.pdf
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s).
dc.date.updated2018-06-24T03:28:48Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.