Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Integrated Determinants of Maternal Healthcare Decisions: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Predisposing, Enabling, and Illness-Level Factors in Bo District, Sierra Leone Cover

Integrated Determinants of Maternal Healthcare Decisions: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Predisposing, Enabling, and Illness-Level Factors in Bo District, Sierra Leone

Open Access
|Jun 2026

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Study population ratios and sociodemographic characteristics of participants (n = 500).

A Study population ratios by residence.

POPULATION CATEGORYURBAN (BO GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL), NRURAL (TIKONKO MATERNITY HOME), NURBAN: RURAL RATIO
Pregnant women238564.25:1
Mothers of children under 5136701.94:1
Children under 5 (total)137731.94:1
Children under 5—Male64381.73:1
Children under 5—Female73352.18:1

B Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.

CHARACTERISTICCATEGORY/MEASUREN (%)STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Age of pregnant women (years)Mean24.83 ± 4.74 (SE = 0.28; Range: 16–45; 95% CI: 24.29–25.37)
Median25
Mode25
Age of mothers (years)Mean24.07 ± 4.34 (SE = 0.30; Range: 17–45; 95% CI: 23.47–24.67)
Median23
Mode20
Educational levelNo formal education50 (10.0)
Primary education142 (28.4)
Secondary education268 (53.6)
Tertiary education40 (8.0)
Monthly income (SLE)Mean335.03 ± 668.49 (SE = 29.90; Range: 0–10,000; 95% CI: 276.29–393.77)
Pregnancies experiencedMean1.83 ± 1.05 (SE = 0.05; Range: 1–7+; 95% CI: 1.74–1.92)

[i] Note: Values are presented as n (%) for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables. CI = confidence interval; SE = standard error; SLE = Sierra Leonean Leone.

Table 2

Predisposing factors influencing antenatal and postnatal care–seeking behavior and decision by residence (multiple responses, n = 500).

PREDISPOSING
FACTOR
URBAN (BO
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL) N (%)
RURAL (TIKONKO
MATERNITY
HOME) N (%)
TOTAL N (%)ODDS
RATIO (OR)
95% CIχ²P‑VALUECRAMÉR’S V
Any predisposing factor reported363 (97.1)124 (98.4)487 (97.4)0.530.12–2.430.690.410.04
Knowledge and health awareness305 (75.5)99 (24.5)404 (83.0)Reference
Attitudes and beliefs45 (71.4)18 (28.6)63 (12.6)0.810.45–1.470.470.490.03
Cultural factors3 (33.3)6 (66.7)9 (1.8)0.160.04–0.6610.120.0040.14
Social support and norms10 (90.9)1 (9.1)11 (2.2)3.250.41–25.681.380.240.05
Total predisposing reports363 (100)124 (100)487 (100)

[i] Note: Odds ratios compare the likelihood of reporting each predisposing factor among urban versus rural respondents. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; χ² = Pearson’s Chi‑square test.

[ii] Effect size interpretation (Cramér’s V): ≈0.10 = small, ≈0.30 = moderate, ≥0.50 = large association.

Table 3

Enabling factors influencing maternal healthcare access and decision by residence (multiple responses; n = 500).

ENABLING FACTORURBAN
FREQUENCY
(N = 1,840)
RURAL
FREQUENCY
(N = 627)
TOTAL
FREQUENCY
ODDS RATIO
(OR)
95% CIχ²P‑VALUECRAMÉR’S V
Health insurance coverage209 (86.36)33 (13.64)2422.311.58–3.3718.96<0.0010.20
Financial stability203 (82.52)43 (17.48)2461.681.20–2.378.620.0030.13
Proximity to healthcare facilities162 (85.71)27 (14.29)1892.151.41–3.2612.75<0.0010.16
Transportation availability169 (78.60)46 (21.40)2151.481.05–2.084.960.0260.10
Cultural competency in healthcare155 (83.78)30 (16.22)1851.831.23–2.748.410.0040.13
Supportive social environment164 (86.32)26 (13.68)1902.261.48–3.4614.28<0.0010.17
Geographic accessibility48 (96.00)2 (4.00)508.372.03–34.5411.220.0010.15
Cultural and social support (traditional)4 (16.67)20 (83.33)240.070.02–0.1939.86<0.0010.28
Healthcare infrastructure adequacy10 (32.26)21 (67.74)310.160.07–0.3427.45<0.0010.23
Language and communication support9 (31.03)20 (68.97)290.150.07–0.3327.08<0.0010.23
Availability of preventive services28 (57.14)21 (42.86)490.450.25–0.797.060.0080.12
Community awareness and engagement33 (55.93)26 (44.07)590.420.25–0.7110.010.0020.14

[i] Note: Odds ratios compare the likelihood of reporting each enabling factor among urban versus rural respondents. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; χ² = Pearson’s Chi‑square test.

[ii] Effect size interpretation (Cramér’s V): ≈0.10 = small, ≈0.30 = moderate, ≥0.50 = large association.

Table 4

Illness‑level factors influencing maternal healthcare‑seeking behavior by residence (n = 500).

A Experienced Health Issues or Complications Requiring Care.

RESPONSE
CATEGORY
URBAN (BO
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL) N (%)
RURAL (TIKONKO
MATERNITY
HOME) N (%)
TOTAL N (%)UNADJUSTED OR95% CIχ²P‑VALUECRAMÉR’S V
Yes261 (69.8)80 (63.5)341 (68.2)1.330.87–2.031.440.230.05
No113 (30.2)46 (36.5)159 (31.8)Reference

[i] OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; χ² = Pearson’s Chi‑square test.

[ii] Effect size interpretation (Cramér’s V): ≈0.10 = small, ≈0.30 = moderate, ≥0.50 = large association.

B Perceived Influence of Illness‑Level Factors on Healthcare‑Seeking Decisions (n = 341).

INFLUENCE CATEGORYURBAN N (%)RURAL N (%)TOTAL N (%)
Extremely influential3 (60.0)2 (40.0)5 (1.5)
Very influential93 (90.3)10 (9.7)103 (30.2)
Moderately influential119 (77.3)35 (22.7)154 (45.2)
Slightly influential42 (75.0)14 (25.0)56 (16.4)
Not influential4 (17.4)19 (82.6)23 (6.7)

[i] Note: Cramér’s V is reported to support practical interpretation of residence‑based differences in perceived illness‑level influence.

[ii] Statistical test: Mann–Whitney U = 14,165.5.

[iii] p‑value: < 0.001.

[iv] Cramér’s V (converted for interpretive consistency): 0.21 (small‑to‑moderate effect).

Table 5

Factors influencing the decision to seek healthcare services for children by residence (n = 430; multiple responses = 1,425).

FACTORURBAN (BO
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL) N (%)
RURAL (TIKONKO
MATERNITY
HOME) N (%)
TOTAL
N (%)
ODDS RATIO (OR)95% CIχ²P‑VALUECRAMÉR’S V
Knowledge and awareness308 (73.5)111 (26.5)419 (29.4)Reference
Cultural beliefs127 (82.5)27 (17.5)154 (10.8)0.310.19–0.5031.02<0.0010.27
Financial resources149 (81.0)35 (19.0)184 (12.9)0.380.24–0.6027.45<0.0010.25
Health insurance coverage125 (85.6)21 (14.4)146 (10.3)0.280.17–0.4832.18<0.0010.27
Symptoms and perceived severity133 (76.0)42 (24.0)175 (12.3)0.420.27–0.6620.57<0.0010.22
Medical advice from health workers174 (71.9)68 (28.1)242 (17.0)0.660.46–0.945.100.0240.11
Previous health experiences63 (60.0)42 (40.0)105 (7.4)0.280.18–0.4427.66<0.0010.25

[i] Note: Odds ratios compare the likelihood of reporting each factor among urban versus rural respondents. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; χ² = Pearson’s Chi‑square test.

[ii] Effect size interpretation (Cramér’s V): ≈0.10 = small, ≈0.30 = moderate, ≥0.50 = large association.

Table 6

Place of childbirth, ANC, and PNC utilization.

Birth at Health Facility (N = 206)
Bo Government Hospital, n (%)Tikonko Maternity Home, n (%)
Yes135 (65.53)69 (33.50)
No1 (0.49)1 (0.49)
ANC utilization (N = 294)
Bo Government Hospital, n (%)Tikonko Maternity Home, n (%)
Yes235 (79.93)54 (18.37)
No3 (1.02)2 (0.68)
PNC utilization (N = 206)
Bo Government Hospital, n (%)Tikonko Maternity Home, n (%)
Yes134 (65.05)69 (35.50)
No2 (0.97)1 (0.49)
Figure 1

Distribution of antenatal care visits among study participants.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.5148 | Journal eISSN: 2214-9996
Language: English
Page range: 57 - 57
Submitted on: Dec 24, 2025
Accepted on: May 10, 2026
Published on: Jun 18, 2026
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Rennie Viah, Rashid Ansumana, Emmanuel Komba Finoh, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.