Evidence Hub

Delay in healthcare seeking for young children with severe pneumonia at Mulago National Referral Hospital, Uganda: A mixed methods cross-sectional study

Phiona Ekyaruhanga, R. Nantanda, H. Aanyu, J. Mukisa, J. Ssemasaazi, M. John, Palma Aceng, Joseph Rujumba

PLoS ONE, 2023

384 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Background Globally, pneumonia is the leading infectious cause of under-five mortality, and this can be reduced by prompt healthcare seeking. Data on factors associated with delays in seeking care for children with pneumonia in Uganda is scarce. Objectives The study aimed to determine the prevalence, factors associated with delay, barriers, and facilitators of prompt healthcare seeking for children under five years of age with severe pneumonia attending Mulago National Referral Hospital (MNRH) Uganda. Methods A mixed methods cross-sectional study was conducted among 384 caregivers of children with severe pneumonia at MNRH. Quantitative data was collected using interviewer-administered structured questionnaires and qualitative data through focus group discussions with caregivers. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the prevalence of delay in care seeking. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors that were independently associated with delay in seeking healthcare. Content thematic analysis was used to analyze for barriers and facilitators of prompt healthcare seeking. Results The prevalence of delay in seeking healthcare was 53.6% (95% CI: 48.6–58.6). Long distance to a hospital (AOR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.22–3.01, p value = 0.003), first seeking care elsewhere (AOR = 3.33, 95% CI 1.85–6.01, p value = 0.001), and monthly income ≤100,000 UGX (28 USD) (AOR = 2.27,95% CI 1.33–3.86, p value = 0.003) were independently associated with delay in seeking…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 384 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free