Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Husband’s involvement with mother’s awareness and knowledge of newborn danger signs in facility-based childbirth settings: a cross-sectional study from rural Bangladesh

BMC Research Notes201811:286

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3386-6

  • Received: 8 September 2017
  • Accepted: 30 April 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the association between husband involvement and maternal awareness and knowledge of newborn danger signs. This cross-sectional study was conducted in three rural hospitals of Bangladesh among the recently delivered women (RDW).

Results

RDW were interviewed to determine their knowledge and understanding of seven key neonatal danger signs. About 51.4% of the respondents were able to identify at least one danger sign. ‘Fever’ was the most correctly identified (43.7%), and hypothermia was the least (26.1%) identified danger sign. The factors associated with RDW possessing knowledge of at least one neonatal danger sign were: secondary education (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6), increased ANC visits (COR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3), previous history of facility delivery (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.4), and husband involvement in the mother’s facility delivery (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5). RDW were more likely to recall at least one newborn danger sign (AOR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.4) when the husband was actively involved in his wife’s antenatal, delivery and postnatal care. In conclusion, this study found that husband involvement was significantly associated with the maternal knowledge related to identification of neonatal danger signs.

Keywords

  • Husband involvement
  • Knowledge
  • Newborn danger sign
  • Bangladesh

Introduction

Of the estimated 5.9 million under-five deaths in 2015, about 45% of children died in the neonatal period. The highest number of neonatal mortality occurred in South Asia with a neonatal mortality rate (NMR) of 30 per 1000 live births in 2015 [1]. Many countries in this region have a high NMR including Bangladesh with an estimated NMR of 28 per 1000 live births [2]. A child survival revolution has been observed due to the successful implementation of different interventions which have contributed to lower rates of neonatal mortality [35]. Previous studies found that timely care-seeking is essential during illness to achieve the targeted reduction of maternal and neonatal mortality [6, 7].

Earlier studies estimated that 80% of neonatal deaths are preventable with increased coverage of currently available, evidence-based, and cost-effective measures [8, 9]. In particular, early symptom recognition, appropriate care-seeking, and recognition of danger signs have been identified as cornerstones in neonatal death reduction [10, 11]. As neonates are more prone to express subtle signs of illness [12, 13], it is essential that mothers possess the knowledge needed to identify symptoms. Symptoms such as breathing difficulty, very low or high temperatures, convulsions, feeding problems and less movement are symptoms of the leading causes of neonatal deaths—notably neonatal sepsis, perinatal asphyxia, and prematurity [14].

In a traditional Bangladeshi family, the husband acts as the major decision maker, and the wife and children respect the decisions that are made [15]. Consistent with this family model, Mullany and Thapa found that it was essential to involve husbands when looking to improve the health of pregnant women and their newborns [16, 17]. Other studies that examined the factors associated with maternal ability to identify newborn danger signs weren’t successful at the facility level [18, 19]. The current study investigated the extent to which a mother can recognize the danger signs of newborn illness, and how husband involvement influenced the knowledge level of these women.

Main text

Design and methods

Study design, settings, and participants

This cross-sectional facility-based study was conducted from January to April 2015. The study was carried out in three Upazila (i.e. sub-district) Health Complex (UHC) facilities in the Tangail district of Bangladesh. Each sub-district contains a UHC which is the secondary level referral hospital with a 50 bed inpatient capacity for a catchment area with a population of 300,000–500,000. For this study, we enrolled 142 recently delivered women (RDW) who encountered a normal vaginal delivery (NVD), had a live born baby, and were physically stable. Each mother was accompanied by at least one attendant so that they had someone to care for their babies while they were being interviewed. RDW were interviewed using a structured questionnaire which was administered within 6 h of normal delivery.

Variables and measurements

A wealth quintile was considered based on possession of electronic items or vehicles [19]. The education level of women and their husbands was also taken into consideration. One of the inclusion criteria for the study was to enroll mothers who had at least one other baby or a history of delivery. The seven major danger signs used in this study were those outlined in the National health strategy of Bangladesh and World Health Organization’s (WHO) pocket book of inpatient newborn care [20]. A detailed description of the data collection tool and procedure are given in the Additional file 1.

Statistical analysis

A frequency distribution was used to present the categorical variables. Mean and standard deviation (SD) were used for continuous variables. This study used logistic regression to identify the association between husband involvement and knowledge of at least one danger sign among the RDW. Stata version 13 (College Station, Texas, USA) was used for data analysis. Crude odds ratio (CORs) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated, and odds ratios were reported with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Participant’s characteristics

The mean age of the participants was 23.7 (± 8.6) years. More than half of the participants were residents of semi-urban areas. Around 64.8% of the participants had received a secondary education, and 62.3% were from households categorized as having a ‘low’ asset ownership. The majority of the interviewees were housewives (71.1%), and around 57.1% of all women had a previous history of hospital delivery (Table 1). Knowledge of ‘hyperthermia (i.e., fever)’ was the most well recognized danger sign, being recognized by 43.7% of the participants. Around 35% of the respondents were able to recall the danger signs of ‘hypothermia’, ‘lethargic’, ‘convulsions’, ‘severe chest indrawing’ and ‘stopped feeding well’ (see Additional file 2).
Table 1

Basic characteristics of study participants

Characteristics

Number

Percentage (%)

Maternal age, in years

 < 20

32

22.5

 20–24

52

36.6

 25–29

39

27.5

 > 30

19

13.4

Mean age (SD)

23.7 (± 8.6)

Place of residence

 Rural

59

41.6

 Semi-urban

83

58.4

Occupation

 Housewife

101

71.1

 Employed

41

28.9

Education level

 < Secondary

50

35.2

 ≥ Secondary

92

64.8

Number of children

 < 3

98

69.0

 ≥ 3

44

31.0

Number of ANC visit

 0

13

9.2

 One visit

39

27.5

 2–3 visits

58

40.8

 ≥ 4 visits

32

22.5

Husband’s education

 < Higher secondary

91

64.1

 ≥ Higher secondary

51

35.9

Household assets

 Low

87

61.3

 High

55

38.7

Previous history of hospital delivery

 Yes

86

60.6

 No

56

39.4

Husband’s involvement

 Yes

81

57.1

 No

61

42.9

ANC antenatal care, secondary 10 class/grade, higher secondary 12 class

Factors influencing husband’s involvement in facility delivery

As shown in the bivariate logistic regression analysis in Table 2, factors that were significantly associated with the husband’s participation in the facility delivery (secondary outcome variable) included: increased age (COR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–2.1), semi-urban residence (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5), secondary education (COR: 1.1, 95% CI 1.0–1.3), use of ANC services (COR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3), and previous history of facility delivery (COR: 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.6).
Table 2

Factors associated with husband’s active involvement in facility delivery

Characteristics

Husband’s involved (n = 81)

COR (95% CI)

p value

Age, in years

 < 25

38 (46.9)

Ref.

 ≥ 25

43 (53.1)

1.4 (1.2–2.1)*

0.001

Location of residence

 Rural

32 (39.5)

Ref.

 Semi-urban

49 (60.5)

1.3 (1.1–1.5)*

0.001

Occupation

 Housewife

56 (69.1)

Ref.

 Employed

25 (30.9)

0.8 (0.6–1.1)

0.21

Education level

 < Secondary

33 (40.7)

Ref.

 ≥ Secondary

48 (59.3)

1.1 (1.0–1.3)*

0.001

Number of children

 < 3

56 (69.1)

Ref.

 ≥ 3

25 (30.9)

0.8 (0.7–1.1)

0.1

Number of ANC visit

 < 2 visits

35 (43.2)

Ref.

 ≥ 2 visits

46 (56.8)

1.2 (1.1–1.3)*

0.002

Husband’s education

 < Higher secondary

52 (64.2)

Ref.

 ≥ Higher secondary

29 (35.8)

0.9 (0.7–1.1)

0.41

Household assets

 Low

49 (60.5)

Ref.

 High

32 (39.5)

0.9 (0.7–1.1)

0.32

Previous experience of facility delivery

 No

29 (35.8)

Ref.

 Yes

52 (64.2)

1.5 (1.2–1.6)*

0.01

ANC antenatal care, secondary 10 class/grade, higher secondary 12 class, ref. reference value, COR crude odds ratio

* p < 0.05

Table 2 represents the bi-variable logistic regression only and we did not consider the multivariable analysis. We explored the different factors associated with the husband’s active involvement in taking the decision of facility delivery.

Factors associated with knowledge of newborn danger sign among the RDW

Table 3 describes the factors that were related to the outcome variable (i.e., knowledge of at least one danger sign) of this study. We found associations with secondary education (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6), increased ANC visits (COR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3), previous history of facility delivery (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.4), and husbands involvement in care (COR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5) with having the maternal knowledge of at least one neonatal danger sign (Table 3). After adjusting for the maternal factors (high parity, ANC attendance, location of residence, occupation, household assets, facility-based delivery and education level), husband involvement (AOR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.4) was associated with an increased maternal knowledge of newborn danger signs.
Table 3

Factors associated with knowing at least one danger sign among the RDW

Characteristics

Danger sign identified (n = 73)

COR (95% CI)

AaOR (95% CI)

Age (years)

 < 25

38 (52.1)

Ref.

Ref.

 ≥ 25

35 (47.9)

0.8 (0.6–1.1)

0.9 (0.8–1.3)

Location of residence

 Rural

28 (38.4)

Ref.

Ref.

 Semi-urban

45 (61.6)

1.1 (0.8–1.3)

0.9 (0.7–1.2)

Occupation

 Housewife

48 (65.8)

Ref.

Ref.

 Employed

25 (34.2)

0.9 (0.6–1.1)

0.7 (0.5–1.0)

Education level

 < Secondary

21 (28.8)

Ref.

Ref.

 ≥ Secondary

52 (71.2)

1.3 (1.1–1.6)*

1.2 (1.1–1.5)*

Number of children

 < 3

52 (71.2)

Ref.

Ref.

 ≥ 3

21 (28.8)

0.9 (0.9–1.2)

0.8 (0.7–1.1)

ANC taken

 < 2 visits

22 (30.1)

Ref.

Ref.

 ≥ 2 visits

51 (69.9)

1.2 (1.1–1.3)*

1.1 (0.9–1.3)

Household assets

 Low

39 (53.4)

Ref.

Ref.

 High

34 (46.6)

0.9 (0.8–1.1)

0.8 (0.7–1.1)

Husband’s involvement

 No

22 (30.1)

Ref.

Ref.

 Yes

51 (69.9)

1.3 (1.1–1.5)*

1.2 (1.1–1.4)*

Previous experience of facility delivery

 No

21 (28.8)

Ref.

ref

 Yes

52 (71.2)

1.2 (1.1–1.4)*

1.3 (1.1–1.4)*

COR crude odds ratio, AOR adjusted odds ratio, ref. reference value

* p < 0.05

aAdjusted for age, parity, ANC, residence, occupation, education, household assets, and facility delivery

Discussion

This study found a significant association between husband involvement and maternal knowledge of newborn danger signs. Location of residence, increased maternal age, maternal education and previous history of facility delivery were also found to be associated with increased knowledge of mother in identifying the newborn danger signs. We also found that pregnant women attending two or more ANC appointments demonstrated an increased recall of neonatal danger signs, and husband involvement in these visits was associated with an increased ability to identify the danger signs. A previous study found that ANC visits encourage active birth pre-planning and preparedness [21]. During the antenatal check-up, pregnant women also get the opportunity to learn more about the maternal and newborn danger signs from healthcare professionals [22]. This could explain why increased access to ANC services tends to result in pregnant woman having greater knowledge about neonatal danger signs. It could be argued that mothers who have attended ANC services become motivated to access hospital-based delivery services. Consistent with previous studies in low to middle-income settings, we also found that high levels of education were positively associated with being able to recall at least one danger sign [2325]. This is thought to be due to the higher ability of educated women to be able to understand messages related to health education [23]. Our study found that husband involvement was significantly associated with increased maternal knowledge of neonatal danger signs. This finding is consistent with the systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Yargawa et al. [26], which showed that male or husband involvement in care was significantly associated with positive maternal outcomes [27, 28].

This study found that the correct response to ‘lethargic’ and ‘stopped feeding well’ was given by approximately 38% of the participants. Of the seven danger signs, the least known were ‘hypothermia,’ and ‘fast breathing’. In a study conducted in Pakistan, Khadduri et al. [29] had also identified ‘difficulty feeding’ and ‘fast breathing’ as the least known danger signs amongst a group of new mothers. This low knowledge of hypothermia is cause for concern considering it is a life-threatening condition for newborns. The delay in identification of these lesser known danger signs may be contributing to neonatal mortality and morbidity in low resource settings like Bangladesh [30]. In our study, knowledge on hyperthermia (fever) was found to be the most commonly known danger sign, and the sign was mentioned by 43.7% of the participants. Our findings are similar to other studies conducted in India which found here was a high awareness (75–90%) of ‘hyperthermia’ as a danger sign [31, 32].

More than half of the respondents (RDW) of our study were able to identify at least one key danger sign, and the findings were generally consistent with the results of other low-income settings [33]. The imperfect knowledge of newborn danger signs is one of the leading causes of delay in decision making and care-seeking that is also known as the first delay [34]. Waiswa et al. [35] argue that the first delay is the underlying cause of 50% of all neonatal deaths. However, danger sign identification and recognition by the mother might not always be enough to empower women to decide to access hospital or facility care for their babies in rural settings [10, 36]. The decision to seek care from a hospital for sick neonates may also be sought from elder family members depending on family dynamics. In addition to decision making, previous research identified major constraints like high cost, low socioeconomic status, difficulty in accessing to healthcare services and low literacy levels that may prevent a mother from taking her baby to the hospital [37].

This study identified increased age, semi-urban residence, secondary education, higher use of ANC services and previous history of facility delivery as factors associated with husband involvement in facility delivery. Husband involvement in pregnancy and reproductive health components has long been discussed. Some studies have shown benefits of involving men in reproductive health issues by emphasizing increased utilization of antenatal care and postnatal care that helps a mother in alleviating the stress, pain, and anxiety related to pregnancy and post-partum depression [27, 3848]. These positive findings can be further explored by conducting in-depth qualitative studies. Moreover, husbands can improve their wives knowledge on self-care and newborn care by providing counseling, health education, and by advising them to practice increased health care seeking behaviour [49]. Our study also revealed that new mothers who got little input from their partners during pregnancy and delivery may have a poorer understanding of neonatal danger signs in comparison to women whose husbands are actively involved.

Finally, the results of our study highlight the vital role of the husband in optimizing the level of knowledge and awareness of the mother with regards to neonatal danger signs. Further longitudinal studies would be required to derive reliable inferences on the husband’s supportive role in the neonatal care-seeking paradigm by the mother and how it precludes neonatal mortality as a result of early identification of danger signs.

Limitations

The results of this study were based on three sub-district hospitals. Although the participants of this study were roughly representative of the rural population of Bangladesh, the findings may not adequately reflect the actual situation given our sample size. Our sample size was relatively small; however, post hoc calculation determined a high statistical power, which is one of the strengths of this study. Also, the temporality of the association was not established given the cross-sectional design of the study. Despite adjustments for age, location of residence, occupation, education level, parity, household assets, ANC visits and previous facility delivery, there may be some unidentified confounding variables which were not taken into account. This study also did not consider whether the husband’s involvement in maternal care affects the mothers knowledge when mothers are better educated or when they have been trained to recognize the danger signs of neonatal illness.

Abbreviations

ANC: 

antenatal care

AOR: 

adjusted odds ratio

COR: 

crude odds ratio

NMR: 

neonatal mortality rate

RDW: 

Recently Delivered Women

SD: 

standard deviation

UHC: 

Upazila Health Complex

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

SBZ, NH, DMEH conceptualized the study. SBZ, NH, RDG, MMIB developed the methodology and implemented the research in the field. SBZ, RDG, NH, GMAK contributed in data analysis. SBZ, RDG, GMAK, NH, MMIB, DMEH prepared the first draft of the manuscript. DMEH as senior author, guided data analysis, editing and preparing responses of reviewers. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Hospital Managers (Upazila Health and Family Planning Officer) of the three participated sub-district Hospitals for giving us the permission. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the hospital doctors and nurses for their hospitality, patience, and kindness during the interviews and throughout the process of our data collection. We specially want to thank Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman and Rafid Bin Zaman for their help in proofreading the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The data set supporting the conclusions of this article is not included to protect patient confidentiality. However, the data set can be obtained from the authors upon request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Prior permission for data collection was taken from the respective hospital authority. Written consent was received from each participating woman. Each woman was explained about the objective of the study. In case of minor respondents (age < 18 years), written informed consent was taken from the husband/accompanying guardian. Each participant was able to skip any question they weren’t comfortable answering, and were informed of their right to quit interview any time.

Funding

There is no source of financing.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Maternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh
(2)
James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
(3)
Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA
(4)
Department of Pharmacology, Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh
(5)
Public Health and World Health Wing, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Dhaka, Bangladesh

References

  1. UN Inter–Agency Group for Child Mortality. Child mortality estimates September 2015. 2015. http://www.childmortality.org/files_v20/download/IGME%20report%202015%20child%20mortality%20final.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2017.
  2. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT), Mitra and Associates, ICF International. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2014. 2016. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR311/FR311.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2017.
  3. Lawn JE. The child survival revolution: what next? Lancet. 2014;384(9947):931–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Martines J, Paul VK, Bhutta ZA, Koblinsky M, et al. Neonatal survival: a call for action. Lancet. 2005;365(9465):1189–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Bhutta ZA, Darmstadt GL, Martines J, Paul V, et al. Why are 4 million newborn babies dying each year? Lancet. 2004;364:399–401.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. de Silva MA, Wijekoon A, Hornik R, Martines J. Care seeking in Sri Lanka: one possible explanation for low childhood mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(10):1363–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Souza RM. Role of health-seeking behaviour in child mortality in the slums of Karachi, Pakistan. J Biosoc Sci. 2003;35(1):131–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Akseer N, Lawn JE, Keenan W, Konstantopoulos A, Cooper P, Ismail Z, et al. Ending preventable newborn deaths in a generation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131:S43–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Bahl R, Lawn JE, Salam RA, Paul VK, et al. Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? Lancet. 2014;384(9940):347–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill Z, Kendall C, Arthur P, Kirkwood B, Adjei E. Recognizing childhood illnesses and their traditional explanations: exploring options for care-seeking interventions in the context of the IMCI strategy in rural Ghana. Trop Med Int Health. 2003;8(7):668–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Yoder PS, Hornik RC. Symptoms and perceived severity of illness as predictive of treatment for diarrhea in six Asian and African sites. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(4):429–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bang AT, Bang RA, Reddy MH, Baitule SB, Deshmukh MD, Paul VK, et al. Simple clinical criteria to identify sepsis or pneumonia in neonates in the community needing treatment or referral. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(4):335–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Baqui AH, Rahman M, Zaman K, El Arifeen S, Chowdhury HR, Begum N, et al. A population-based study of hospital admission incidence rate and bacterial aetiology of acute lower respiratory infections in children aged less than five years in Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 2007;25(2):179.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Thatte N, Kalter HD, Baqui A, Williams E, Darmstadt GL. Ascertaining causes of neonatal deaths using verbal autopsy: current methods and challenges. J Perinatol. 2009;29(3):187.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Story WT, Burgard SA, Lori JR, Taleb F, Ali NA, Hoque DE. Husbands’ involvement in delivery care utilization in rural Bangladesh: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12(1):28.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Thapa DK, Niehof A. Women’s autonomy and husbands’ involvement in maternal health care in Nepal. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:1–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mullany BC. Barriers to and attitudes towards promoting husbands’ involvement in maternal health in Katmandu, Nepal. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(11):2798–809.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nigatu SG, Worku AG, Dadi AF. Level of mother’s knowledge about neonatal danger signs and associated factors in North West of Ethiopia: a community-based study. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):309.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandberg J, Pettersson KO, Asp G, Kabakyenga J, Agardh A. Inadequate knowledge of neonatal danger signs among recently delivered women in southwestern rural Uganda: a community survey. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e97253.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. World Health Organization. Pocket book of hospital care for children: guidelines for the management of common illnesses with limited resources. Geneva: WHO; 2011. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43206/1/9241546700.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  21. McPherson RA, Khadka N, Moore JM, Sharma M. Are birth-preparedness programmes effective? Results from a field trial in Siraha district, Nepal. J Health Popul Nutr. 2006;24(4):479–88.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Prata N, Passano P, Sreenivas A, Gerdts CE. Maternal mortality in developing countries: challenges in scaling-up priority interventions. Womens Health (Lond). 2010;6(2):311–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kabakyenga JK, Östergren P-O, Turyakira E, Pettersson KO. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and birth preparedness practices among women in rural Uganda. Reprod Health. 2011;8(1):33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Pembe AB, Urassa DP, Carlstedt A, Lindmark G, Nyström L, Darj E. Rural Tanzanian women’s awareness of danger signs of obstetric complications. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9(1):12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Mutiso SM, Qureshi Z, Kinuthia J. Birth preparedness among antenatal clients. East Afr Med J. 2008;85(6):275–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yargawa J, Leonardi-Bee J. Male involvement and maternal health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204784.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Redshaw M, Henderson J. Fathers’ engagement in pregnancy and childbirth: evidence from a national survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(1):70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Schaffer MA, Lia-Hoagberg B. Effects of social support on prenatal care and health behaviors of low-income women. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1997;26(4):433–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Khadduri R, Marsh DR, Rasmussen B, Bari A, Nazir R, Darmstadt GL. Household knowledge and practices of newborn and maternal health in Haripur district, Pakistan. J Perinatol. 2008;28(3):182–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar V, Shearer JC, Kumar A, Darmstadt GL. Neonatal hypothermia in low resource settings: a review. J Perinatol. 2009;29(6):401–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Dongre AR, Deshmukh PR, Garg BS. Awareness and health care seeking for newborn danger signs among mothers in peri-urban Wardha. Indian J Pediatr. 2009;76(7):691–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Awasthi S, Verma T, Agarwal M. Danger signs of neonatal illnesses: perceptions of caregivers and health workers in northern India. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(10):819–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Rahman AE, Iqbal A, Hoque DE, Moinuddin M, Zaman SB, Rahman QS, et al. Managing neonatal and early childhood syndromic sepsis in sub-district hospitals in resource poor settings: improvement in quality of care through introduction of a package of interventions in rural Bangladesh. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0170267.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Thaddeus S, Maine D. Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(8):1091–110.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Barnes-Josiah D, Myntti C, Augustin A. The, “three delays” as a framework for examining maternal mortality in Haiti. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(8):981–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Waiswa P, Kallander K, Peterson S, Tomson G, Pariyo GW. Using the three delays model to understand why newborn babies die in eastern Uganda. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15(8):964–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaman SB, Hossain N, Yasir Arafat SM, Sharmin S. Management of Newborn Infection: knowledge and attitude among health care providers of selected sub-district hospitals in Bangladesh. Int J Percept Public Health. 2017;1(2):127–32.Google Scholar
  38. Roth DM, Mbizvo MT. Promoting safe motherhood in the community: the case for strategies that include men. Afr J Reprod Health. 2001;5(2):10–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Bielinski-Blattmann D, Lemola S, Jaussi C, Stadlmayr W, Grob A. Postpartum depressive symptoms in the first 17 months after childbirth: the impact of an emotionally supportive partnership. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(5):333.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dennis CL, Ross L. Women’s perceptions of partner support and conflict in the development of postpartum depressive symptoms. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56(6):588–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gremigni P, Mariani L, Marracino V, Tranquilli AL, Turi A. Partner support and postpartum depressive symptoms. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;32(3):135–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Grube M. Inpatient treatment of women with postpartum psychiatric disorders—the role of the male partners. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(3):163–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Al Dallal FH, Grant IN. Postnatal depression among Bahraini women: prevalence of symptoms and psychosocial risk factors. East Mediterr Health J. 2012;18(5):432.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Reid H, Power M, Cheshire K. Factors influencing antenatal depression, anxiety and stress. Br J Midwifery. 2009;17(8):501–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Stapleton LR, Schetter CD, Westling E, Rini C, Glynn LM, Hobel CJ, et al. Perceived partner support in pregnancy predicts lower maternal and infant distress. J Fam Psychol. 2012;26(3):453.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. D’Aliesio L, Vellone E, Amato E, Alvaro R. The positive effects of father’s attendance to labour and delivery: a quasi experimental study. Int Nurs Perspect. 2009;9(1):5–10.Google Scholar
  47. Mekonnen W, Worku A. Determinants of low family planning use and high unmet need in Butajira District, South Central Ethiopia. Reprod Health. 2011;8(1):37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Yue K, O’Donnell C, Sparks PL. The effect of spousal communication on contraceptive use in Central Terai, Nepal. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(3):402–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zaman SB, Hossain N, Hussain MA, Abimanue V, Jahan N, Zaman RB, et al. Factors related to knowledge on newborn danger signs among the recently delivered women in sub-district hospitals of Bangladesh. Public Health Indonesia. 2017;3(2):50–60.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement