METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled parallel-group study, where 372 randomly selected antenatal care attendees were randomly assigned to one of either two groups after collecting baseline data. The intervention group then received a four-hour health education intervention in Hausa language, which was developed based on the IMB model, while the control group received a similarly designed health education on breastfeeding. Follow up data were then collected from the participants at a first (2 months post-intervention) and second (4 months post-intervention) follow up, and at the end of their pregnancies.
RESULTS: For both groups, reported ITN use had increased from baseline (Intervention: Often-14.0%, Almost always-9.1; Control: Often-12.4%; Almost always 16.1%) to the time of second follow up (Intervention: Often -28.10%, Almost always-24.5; Control: Often-17.2%; Almost always 19.5%). Reported IPTp uptake at second follow up was also higher for the intervention group (Intervention: Two doses-59.0%, Three doses 22.3%; Control group: Two doses-48.4%, Three doses-7.0%). The drop in the haematocrit levels was greater for the control group (32.42% to 30.63%) compared to the intervention group (33.09% to 31.93%). The Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis revealed that the intervention had significantly improved reported ITN use, reported IPTp uptake, and haematocrit levels, but had no significant effect on the incidence of reported malaria diagnosis or babies' birth weights.
CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was effective in improving ITN use, IPTp uptake, and haematocrit levels. It is, therefore, recommended for the modules to be adopted and incorporated into the routine antenatal care programmes in health centres with predominantly Hausa speaking clients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR201610001823405. Registered 26 October 2016, www.pactr.org .
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted, in which respondents were selected using a systematic random sampling method, and structured questionnaires were used to obtain information from them. Chi-squared test was used to determine factors associated with uptake of first IPTp dose, while a further multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine its predictors.
RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty respondents answered the survey, whose ages ranged from 15 to 45 years, and 86.8% were multigravid. Sixty five percent of them were aware of IPTp, and 34.7% believed that IPTp could be harmful to their pregnancies. Over a half of the respondents (52.9%) believed that taking all their IPTp medicines was very good for their pregnancies, while 45.0% felt that taking their IPTp medicines was very pleasant. Only two respondents (0.5%) stated that it was very untrue that their significant others thought that they should take all their IPTp medicines. Half of the respondents said it was very easy for them to take all their IPTp medicines even if they were experiencing mild discomforts while taking them. Less than a half (42.37%) had received their first dose of IPTp. In bivariate as well as multivariate analysis, only higher level of knowledge was significantly associated with uptake of first IPTp dose. Those with better knowledge of IPTp were about twice more likely to have taken their first dose of IPTp, compared to those with lower knowledge of IPTp (AOR = 1.85; 95% CI: 1.17-2.92).
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of IPTp as well as its uptake, were sub-optimal in this study. Since knowledge of IPTp significantly predicts uptake of the first dose of IPTp, there is the need to implement health education campaigns to raise the awareness of pregnant women and their families on the need to receive and comply with it.