Barriers to and determinants of the use of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in Cross River State, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria in pregnancy (MIP) has serious consequences for the woman, unborn child and newborn. The use of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for the intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (SP-IPTp) is low in malaria endemic areas, including some regions of Nigeria. However, little is known about pregnant women's compliance with the SP-IPTp national guidelines in primary health care (PHC) facilities in the south-south region of Nigeria. The aim of this study was to identify the barriers to and determinants of the use of SP-IPTp among pregnant women attending ANC in PHC facilities in Cross River State, south-south region of Nigeria. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2011 among 400 ANC attendees aged 15-49 years recruited through multistage sampling. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with the use of SP-IPTp in the study population. RESULTS: Use of SP-IPTp was self-reported by 41% of the total respondents. Lack of autonomy in the households to receive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) during ANC was the main barrier to use of IPTp (83%). Other barriers were stock-outs of free SP (33%) and poor supervision of SP ingestion by directly observed treatment among those who obtained SP from ANC clinics (36/110 = 33%). In the multivariate logistic regression, the odds of using SP-IPTp was increased by the knowledge of the use of insecticide treated nets (ITNs) (OR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.70-3.73) and SP (OR = 22.13, 95% CI: 8.10-43.20) for the prevention of MIP. Use of ITNs also increased the odds of using SP-IPTp (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.24-12.31). CONCLUSIONS: Use of SP-IPTp was low and was associated with knowledge of the use of ITNs and SP as well as the use of ITNs for the prevention of MIP. There is a need to strengthen PHC systems and address barriers to the usage of SP-IPTp in order to reduce the burden of MIP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".