MotherCare

13
general .dev1l-pment, z,act t. 1i bU11 Will 11 spefr,
":' fo,:used , trvent]ion s. "
These tJ-zajo:have ,,her 'mp[li'3 ns: hey iidentity
potentiaI. :hannels for in formatilon dissem 1nat. ion , the
- .ommun ities a:nd ,am(. I ies, ':sUdinc n ..... the ,:mmujnif.y
organizations, health promoters, and midwives. It was nted
hab., despite "heir presence in
many '::mmunties, promoters
and midwives part.i:ipated ir,a very small proportion :,f
births (promoters - '" midwives - 2.1). The majority F
births were attended by family members (S%), with husbands
' ,
actually attending 38% .:f births and present in 78%. Thus
the husband becomes a potentially very import-ant target,
audience, at least for raising awareness of problems that
can occur during Iabor and delivery and of appropriate
responses.
Distance from "health services" j--as not aso'iated
wit-h difference in risk. However, -lD of families lived
over two hours by foot from such services.
This finding has
implications for the appropriate response of families t:.
bhe sort of life-threatening emergencies which result in
perinatal, neonabal, and maternal mortality:
instead 'of he
usual prac.tice of "sending for help" (which in most c:ases
will require subsequent transport :,f the patient t-:-' some
other location ,h4re intervention ,:an be delivered, with
many e:tra hours lost. in coming and going), the families
should be tolid to,: take the Paqtienf t-he servi-s, sending
4;> ' . : •~" : :. /," '; ' = "' 4: "' :,; ! - "L :- ! " q : ~ ' , - i ' . . . - ,; ' • ::'; ' .' ' " -'
.1'•:/ .' = , :" 0 '?< . @ : : .- - i ; : " ,-' :. ?.' t "' ' ": i '°