Women’s decision-making autonomy and utilisation of maternal healthcare services: results from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the association between women's decision-making power and utilisation of maternal healthcare services (MHS) among Bangladeshi women. SETTINGS: This is a nationally representative survey that encompassed Dhaka, Rajshahi, Rangpur, Chittagong, Khulna, Barisal and Sylhet in Bangladesh. Sample households were selected by a two-stage stratification technique. First, 207 clusters in urban areas and 393 in rural areas were selected for 600 enumeration areas with proportional probability. In the second stage, on average 30 households were selected systematically from the enumeration areas. Finally, 17 989 households were selected for the survey of which 96% were interviewed successfully. PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data on 4309 non-pregnant women were collected from Bangladesh demographic and health survey 2014. Decision-making status on respondent's own healthcare, large household purchases, having a say on child's healthcare and visiting to family or relatives were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Prevalence of at least four antenatal attendance, facility delivery and postnatal check-up were respectively 32.6% (95% CI 31.2 to 34), 40.6% (95% CI 39.13 to 42.07) and 66.3% (95% CI 64.89 to 67.71). Compared with women who could make decisions alone, women in the urban areas who had to decide on their healthcare with husband/partner had 20% (95% CI 0.794 to 1.799) higher odds of attending at least four antenatal visits and those in rural areas had 35% (95% CI 0.464 to 0.897) lower odds of attending at least four antenatal visits. Women in urban and rural areas had respectively 43% (95% CI 0.941 to 2.169) and 28% (95% CI 0.928 to 1.751) higher odds of receiving postnatal check-up when their health decisions were made jointly with their husband/partner. CONCLUSION: Neither making decisions alone, nor deciding jointly with husband/partner was always positively associated with the utilisation of all three types of MHS. This study concludes that better spousal cooperation on household and health issues could lead to higher utilisation of MHS services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".