Results
We approached 214 eligible husbands, and 207 participated (response rate: 96.7%). One person did not consent to participate, and the other six were not available for the interview. Husband’s mean age (±SD) was 32.8±5.7 years, with a 90.8% literacy rate. More than half of them (57.5%) were in the 31-40 years age group. One-fourth of the husbands (25.6%) were from SC/ST slums. Most of them followed the Hindu religion (85%), and the nuclear family system was in vogue (56%). Nearly half of them (44.9%) were from the BPL family [Table 1].
Table 2 shows the wife’s obstetric and ANC parameters. Nearly three-fourths of them were multiparas. Overall, the private sector was the primary source of ANC (56%). However, the public sector was the primary source of ANC for BPL families when compared to others (60.2% vs 30.7%, p<0.001). Very high proportions of women had ANC in the first trimester (93.7%) and completed the minimum required four ANCs (98.6%). Only about one-third of them had availed of the benefits of JSY. Nearly two-thirds of the husbands were aware of at least one danger sign of pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum. Nine of every ten husbands escorted his wife for ANC at least once. Nearly one-fourth (26.1%) of them received adequate BPCR from a doctor/ANM. Only one-sixth of them were aware of free public transport services for delivery.
Following proportion of husbands involved in various components of BPCR: planned four ANC visits for wife (200, 96.6%), identified the place of delivery (174, 84.1%), identified the mode of transport (113, 54.6%), identified the birth companion (138, 66.7%), arranged a compatible blood donor (52, 25.1%), and saved money for the delivery expenses (87, 42%).
As many as 104 husbands (50.2%, 95%CI:43.3-57.2%) displayed optimal involvement in BPCR (i.e., involved in at least four components of BPCR). All, 90.8%, 75.8%, 50.2% and 10.1% of them followed at least one, two, three, four, and five of the six BPCR components, respectively. None of them followed all the six BPCR practices.
On unadjusted analysis, the following socio-demographic, wife’s obstetric, and ANC factors were associated with husband’s optimal BPCR involvement: occupation other than labourer (OR: 2.62, 95%CI:1.45-4.72), literate wife (OR: 3.5, 95%CI:1.3-9.1), non-poor family (OR:1.84, 95%CI:1.06-3.19), adequate knowledge of key danger signs (OR: 3.43, 95%CI:1.93-6.09), accompanied wife for ANC at least once (OR: 4.26, 95%CI:1.36-13.32) and received adequate advice on BPCR (OR: 32.1, 95%CI:9.56-107.7) [Tables 3 and 4].
Table 5 shows the adjusted analysis of all those variables with p<0.2 on unadjusted analysis for independent correlates of optimal BPCR involvement. Literate wife (AdjOR:6.5; 95%CI:1.4-28.9), ANC in the first trimester (AdjOR:7.8; 95%CI:1.01-61.1) and receiving adequate information on BPCR (AdjOR:47.8; 95%CI:10.4-219.8) were associated with optimal involvement of husband in BPCR. A week of evidence showed associations of adequate knowledge of key danger signs (AdjOR:2.03; 95%CI:0.98-4.2, p=0.057) and ANC in the private sector (AdjOR:2.14; 95%CI:0.91-5.04, p=0.081) with husband’s optimal BPCR involvement. For the adjusted analysis, we did not include the ’number of ANC visits by wife’ (p=0.19 on the unadjusted analysis) as the number of wives with less than four ANC visits was too small (n=3) to make logistic regression reliable.